August 31, 1987
Ponente: Paras, CJ.
FACTS:
·
In 1961, Mercedes Diago filed an application
for registration of 4 parcels of land containing an approximate area of 30.5943
hectares in Buenavista, Iloilo. She alleged that she had bought said parcels of
land from the testate estate of the late Jose Ma. Nava who, in his lifetime,
had bought the lands in turn from Canuto Gustilo on June 21, 1934.
·
The Director of Lands opposed said application
based on three grounds: (a) that neither the applicant nor her
predecessors-in-interest had sufficient title over the lands applied for; (b)
that neither the applicant nor her predecessors-in-interest had been in open,
continuous and exclusive possession of the said lands for at least 30 years
prior to the filing of the application; and that (c) 19.4080 hectares of the
subject parcels of land were mangrove swamps and were therefore part of the
public domain (i.e., unregisterable).
·
In 1965, while the application for
registration was pending, Filomeno Gallo purchased the 4 parcels of land from
Mercedes Diago. Gallo substituted Diago in the case. In the same year, the
Philippine Fisheries Commission also substituted the Bureau of Forestry as
oppositor over a portion of the land sought to be registered, supervision and
control of said portion having been transferred from the Bureau of Forestry to
the Philippine Fisheries Commission.
·
Trial court ruled in favor of Gallo. Except
for a portion of the subject parcels of land where the municipal hall of
Buenavista town was built, the trial court ordered the registration of the four
(4) parcels of land in the name of Gallo.
·
This ruling was affirmed by the CA, which held
that the rule of prescription lied against the government since the lands
applied for have been possessed and cultivated by Gallo and his
predecessors-in-interest for a long number of years without the government
taking any positive step to dislodge them from their holdings which have passed
from one to another by inheritance or by purchase. Hence, the instant petition.
RULING:
Were
the subject parcels of land registerable? – NOT ENTIRELY.
·
Out of the 30.5943 hectares applied for
registration under the Torrens System, 11.1863 hectares were coconut lands and
admittedly within the disposable portion of the public domain. These can be
registered in Gallo's name.
·
The rest, totaling 19.4080 hectares, were
mangrove and nipa swamps within a timberland block as classification of the
municipality and certified to by the Director of Forestry on February 18, 1956
(way before Diago applied for registration in 1965) as lands needed for forest
purposes. Therefore, these were lands of public domain which cannot be the
subject of registration proceedings.
Can
the rule on prescription be applied against the State in the instant case? –
NO.
·
Gallo cannot claim to have obtained his title
by prescription inasmuch as the application filed by him necessarily implied an
admission that the portions applied for were part of the public domain which
cannot be acquired by prescription, unless the law expressly permits it. It is
a rule of law that possession of forest lands, however long, cannot ripen into
private ownership.
Was
there a need for the Director of Forestry to submit convincing proofs that the
land in dispute was not more valuable for agriculture than for forest purposes?
– NO.
·
As enunciated in the case of Ankon vs. Government of the Philippine
Islands (40 Phil. 10), the general rule is that whether a particular parcel
of land is more valuable for forestry purposes than for agricultural purposes,
or vice versa, is a fact which must be established during the trial of the
case. Whether the particular land is agricultural, forestry or mineral is a
question to be settled in each particular case. The exception to this is when
the Bureau of Forestry has, under the authority conferred upon it by law, prior
to the intervention of private interest, set aside said land for forestry or
mineral resources.
·
The general rule does not apply in the instant
case. As early as 1956, before Diago had applied for registration, 19.4080
hectares of the subject parcel of land had already been declared and certified
as forest lands by the Director of the Bureau of Forestry. As such, contrary to
Gallo's contention, there was no need for the Director of Forestry to submit to
the court convincing proofs that the land in dispute was not more valuable for
agriculture than for forest purposes, as there was no question that the land
was indeed forest land.
Were the
trial court and the CA correct in reclassifying part of the subject parcels of
land from public lands into alienable or disposable lands on the basis of
prescription? – NO.
·
The CA committed grave error and/or abuse of
discretion when it affirmed the trial court's ruling reclassifying the
inalienable part of the subject parcels of land as disposable. As provided for
under Sec. 6 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, which was lifted from Act No. 2874,
the classification or reclassification of public lands into alienable or
disposable, mineral or forest lands is now a prerogative of the Executive
Department of the government and not of the courts. With these rules, there
should be no more room for doubt that it is not the court which determines the classification
of lands of the public domain into agricultural, forest or mineral but the
Executive Branch of the Government, through the Office of the President.