Collado vs Court of Appeals

8/12/2019 Collado vs Court of Appeals

1/47

DIGEST 1

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

This Petition 1 seeks to set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals, 2 dated June 22, 1 2, in CA!"#$# SP No# 2%% &, 'hich declared null and (oid the Decision ) dated Januar* )+, 1 1 of the$e ional Trial Court of Antipolo, $i-al, .ranch &1, in /$C No# 20 !A, /$C $ec# No# N!% 1& ,confir in the i perfect title of petitioners o(er a parcel of land#

The acts

On April 2%, 1 3%, petitioner Edna T# Collado filed 'ith the land re istration court an application forre istration of a parcel of land 'ith an appro4i ate area of 1,2++,&00 s5uare eters or 12+#+&00hectares 67/ot7 for 8re(it*9# The /ot is situated in .aran a* San Isidro 6for erl* kno'n as .oso!8oso9, Antipolo, $i-al, and co(ered 8* Sur(e* Plan Psu!10202+# Attached to the application 'as thetechnical description of the /ot as /ot Psu!10202+ si ned 8* $o8ert C# Pan *arihan, Officer!in!Char e of the Sur(e* Di(ision, .ureau of /ands, 'hich stated, 7:t;his sur(e* is inside IN!12 Su8se5uentl*, ore applicants ?oined 6collecti(el* referred to as7petitioners7 for 8re(it*9# %

The $epu8lic of the Philippines, throu h the Solicitor "eneral, and the


2/47

Ta4 Declaration No# &132 issued on ) e8ruar* 1 %& 6E4hi8it 7I7 and testi on* of # AN"E/INA $EBNOSO, 8ou ht the propert* fro "re orio Ca anti5ue 8* (irtue of aDeed of Sale on ) e8ruar* 1 %3 6E4hi8it 7 79# Durin the o'nership of the propert* 8*

An elina $e*noso,


3/47


4/47

In the eanti e, on


5/47


6/47

=atershed $eser(ation are su8?ect to pri(ate ri hts#7 The* point out that EO )) contains a sa(inclause that the reser(ations are 7su8?ect to e4istin pri(ate ri hts, if an* there 8e#7 Petitionerscontend that their clai of o'nership oes all the 'a* 8ack to 1 +2, 'hen their kno'n predecessor!in!interest, Sesinando /e*(a, laid clai and o'nership o(er the /ot# The* clai that the presu ptionof la' then pre(ailin under the Philippine .ill of 1 +2 and Pu8lic /and Act No# 20 'as that the landpossessed and clai ed 8* indi(iduals as their o'n are a ricultural lands and therefore aliena8le and

disposa8le# The* conclude that pri(ate ri hts 'ere (ested on Sesinando /e*(a 8efore the issuanceof EO )), thus e4cludin the /ot fro the


7/47

Act 23&>, the second Pu8lic /and Act, superseded Act No# 20 in 1 1 # After the passa e of the1 )% Constitution, Co on'ealth Act No# 1>1 67CA 1>17 for 8re(it*9 a ended Act 23&> in 1 )0# CA1>1, as a ended, re ains to this da* as the e4istin eneral la' o(ernin the classification anddisposition of lands of the pu8lic do ain other than ti 8er and ineral lands# 1&

In the eanti e, in order to esta8lish a s*ste of re istration 8* 'hich recorded title 8eco es

a8solute, indefeasi8le and i prescripti8le, the le islature passed Act > 0, other'ise kno'n as the/and $e istration Act, 'hich took effect on e8ruar* 1, 1 +)# Act > 0 placed all re istered lands inthe Philippines under the Torrens s*ste # 13 The Torrens s*ste re5uires the o(ern ent to issue acertificate of title statin that the person na ed in the title is the o'ner of the propert* descri8edtherein, su8?ect to liens and encu 8rances annotated on the title or reser(ed 8* la'# The certificateof title is indefeasi8le and i prescripti8le and all clai s to the parcel of land are 5uieted uponissuance of the certificate# 1 PD 1%2 , kno'n as the Propert* $e istration Decree enacted on June11, 1 &3, 2+ a ended and updated Act > 0#

The 1 )%, 1 &), 1 3& Philippine Constitutions

The 1 )%, 1 &) and 1 3& Constitutions adopted the $e alian doctrine su8stitutin , ho'e(er, the

state, in lieu of the in , as the o'ner of all lands and 'aters of the pu8lic do ain#21

Justice $e*natoS# Puno, in his separate opinion in Cru- (s# Secretar* of En(iron ent and Natural$esources, 22 e4plained thus

7One of the fi4ed and do inatin o8?ecti(es of the 1 )% Constitutional Con(ention 'as thenationali-ation and conser(ation of the natural resources of the countr*# There 'as an o(er'hel insenti ent in the Con(ention in fa(or of the principle of state o'nership of natural resources and theadoption of the $e alian doctrine# State o'nership of natural resources 'as seen as a necessar*startin point to secure reco nition of the state@s po'er to control their disposition, e4ploitation,de(elop ent, or utili-ation# The dele ates to the Constitutional Con(ention (er* 'ell kne' that theconcept of State o'nership of land and natural resources 'as introduced 8* the Spaniards,ho'e(er, the* 'ere not certain 'hether it 'as continued and applied 8* the A ericans# To re o(eall dou8ts, the Con(ention appro(ed the pro(ision in the Constitution affir in the $e aliandoctrine#7

Thus, Section 1, Article III 2) of the 1 )% Constitution, on 7Conser(ation and Htili-ation of Natural$esources7 8arred the alienation of all natural resources e4cept pu8lic a ricultural lands, 'hich 'erethe onl* natural resources the State could alienate# The 1 &) Constitution reiterated the $e aliandoctrine in Section 3, Article I 2> on the 7National Econo * and the Patri on* of the Nation7# The1 3& Constitution reaffir ed the $e alian doctrine in Section 2 of Article II 2% on 7National Econo *and Patri on*7#

.oth the 1 )% and 1 &) Constitutions prohi8ited the alienation of all natural resources e4cepta ricultural lands of the pu8lic do ain# The 1 3& Constitution readopted this polic*# Indeed, all landsof the pu8lic do ain as 'ell as all natural resources enu erated in the Philippine Constitution

8elon to the State#

=atershed $eser(ation is a Natural $esource

The ter 7natural resource7 includes 7not onl* ti 8er, as, oil coal, inerals, lakes, and su8 er edlands, 8ut also, features 'hich suppl* a hu an need and contri8ute to the health, 'elfare, and8enefit of a co unit*, and are essential to the 'ell!8ein thereof and proper en?o* ent of propert*de(oted to park and recreational purposes#7 20


8/47

In Sta# $osa $ealt* De(elop ent Corp# (s# Court of Appeals, et al#, 2& the Court had occasion todiscourse on 'atershed areas# The Court resol(ed the issue of 'hether the parcel of land 'hich theDepart ent of En(iron ent and Natural $esources had assessed to 8e a 'atershed area is e4e ptfro the co(era e of $A No# 00%& or the Co prehensi(e A rarian $efor /a' 67CA$/7 for8re(it*9# 23 The Court defined 'atershed as 7an area drained 8* a ri(er and its tri8utaries andenclosed 8* a 8oundar* or di(ide 'hich separates it fro ad?acent 'atersheds#7 o'e(er, the Court

also reco ni-ed that

7The definition does not e4actl* depict the co ple4ities of a 'atershed# The ost i portant productof a 'atershed is 'ater 'hich is one of the ost i portant hu an necessit6ies9# The protection of'atershed ensures an ade5uate suppl* of 'ater for future enerations and the control of flashfloodsthat not onl* da a e propert* 8ut also cause loss of li(es# Protection of 'atersheds is an7inter enerational7 responsi8ilit* that needs to 8e ans'ered no'#7

Article 0& of the =ater Code of the Philippines 6PD 1+0&9 pro(ides

7Art# 0 An* 'atershed or an* area of land ad?acent to an* surface 'ater or o(erl*in an* round'ater a* 8e declared 8* the Depart ent of Natural $esources as a protected area# $ules and

$e ulations a* 8e pro ul ated 8* such Depart ent to prohi8it or control such acti(ities 8* theo'ners or occupants thereof 'ithin the protected area 'hich a* da a e or cause the deteriorationof the surface 'ater or round 'ater or interfere 'ith the in(esti ation, use, control, protection,ana e ent or ad inistration of such 'aters#7

The Court in Sta# $osa $ealt* also reco ni-ed the need to protect 'atershed areas and took note of the report of the Ecos*ste s $esearch and De(elop ent .ureau 6E$D.9, a research ar of theDEN$, re ardin the en(iron ental assess ent of the Casile and a8an a!an ri(er 'atershedsin(ol(ed in that case# That report concluded as follo's

7The Casile 8aran a* co(ered 8* C/OA in 5uestion is situated in the heartland of 8oth 'atersheds#Considerin the 8aran a*s pro4i it* to the


9/47

The Court re anded the case to the Depart ent of A riculture and Ad?udication .oard or DA$A. tore!e(aluate and deter ine the nature of the parcels of land in(ol(ed in order to resol(e the issue ofits co(era e 8* the CA$/#

Sta# $osa $ealt* i(es us a li pse of the dan ers posed 8* the isuse of natural resources suchas 'atershed reser(ations 'hich are akin to forest -ones# Population ro'th and industriali-ation

ha(e taken a hea(* toll on the en(iron ent# En(iron ental de radation fro unchecked hu anacti(ities could 'reak ha(oc on the li(es of present and future enerations# ence, 8* constitutionalfiat, natural resources re ain to this da* inaliena8le properties of the State#

ie'ed under this le al and factual 8ackdrop, did petitioners ac5uire, as the* (i orousl* ar ue,pri(ate ri hts o(er the parcel of land prior to the issuance of EO )) se re atin the sa e as a'atershed reser(ationL

The ans'er is in the ne ati(e#

irst# An applicant for confir ation of i perfect title 8ears the 8urden of pro(in that he eets there5uire ents of Section >3 of CA 1>1, as a ended# e ust o(erco e the presu ption that the

land he is appl*in for is part of the pu8lic do ain and that he has an interest therein sufficient to'arrant re istration in his na e arisin fro an i perfect title# An i perfect title a* ha(e 8eenderi(ed fro old Spanish rants such as a titulo real or ro*al rant, a concession especial or specialrant, a co posicion con el estado or ad?ust ent title, or a titulo de co pra or title throu hpurchase# 2 Or, that he has had continuous, open and notorious possession and occupation ofa ricultural lands of the pu8lic do ain under a 8ona fide clai of o'nership for at least thirt* *earsprecedin the filin of his application as pro(ided 8* Section >3 689 CA 1>1#

Ori inall*, Section >3689 of CA 1>1 pro(ided for possession and occupation of lands of the pu8licdo ain since Jul* 20, 13 ># This 'as superseded 8* $A 1 >2 'hich pro(ided for a si ple thirt*!*ear prescripti(e period of occupation 8* an applicant for ?udicial confir ation of an i perfect title#The sa e, ho'e(er, has alread* 8een a ended 8* Presidential Decree No# 1+&), appro(ed onJanuar* 2%, 1 &&, the la' pre(ailin at the ti e petitioners@ application for re istration 'as filed on

April 2%, 1 3%# )+ As a ended, Section >3 689 no' reads

7689 Those 'ho 8* the sel(es or throu h their predecessors!in!interest ha(e 8een in open,continuous, e4clusi(e and notorious possession and occupation of a ricultural lands of the pu8licdo ain, under a 8ona fide clai of ac5uisition or o'nership, for at least thirt* *ears i ediatel*precedin the filin of the application for confir ation of title, e4cept 'hen pre(ented 8* 'ars orforce a?eure# Those shall 8e conclusi(el* presu ed to ha(e perfor ed all the conditions essentialto a "o(ern ent rant and shall 8e entitled to a certificate of title under the pro(isions of thischapter#7

Interpretin Section >3 689 of CA 1>1, the Court stated that the Pu8lic /and Act re5uires that theapplicant ust pro(e the follo'in

76a9 that the land is aliena8le pu8lic land and 689 that his open, continuous, e4clusi(e and notoriouspossession and occupation of the sa e ust either 8e since ti e i e orial or for the periodprescri8ed in the Pu8lic /and Act# =hen the conditions set 8* la' are co plied 'ith, the possessorof the land, 8* operation of la', ac5uires a ri ht to a rant, a o(ern ent rant, 'ithout the necessit*of a certificate of title 8ein issued#7 )1

Petitioners do not clai to ha(e docu entar* title o(er the /ot# Their ri ht to re ister the /ot ispredicated ainl* upon continuous possession since 1 +2#


10/47

Clearl*, petitioners 'ere una8le to ac5uire a (alid and enforcea8le ri ht or title 8ecause of the failureto co plete the re5uired period of possession, 'hether under the ori inal Section >3 689 of CA 1>1prior to the issuance of EO )), or under the a end ent 8* $A 1 >2 and PD 1+&)#

There is no proof that prior to the issuance of EO )) in 1 +>, petitioners had ac5uired o'nership ortitle to the /ot either 8* deed or 8* an* other ode of ac5uisition fro the State, as for instance 8*

ac5uisiti(e prescription# As of 1 +>, Sesinando /e*(a had onl* 8een in possession for t'o *ears#eril*, petitioners ha(e not possessed the parcel of land in the anner and for the nu 8er of *earsre5uired 8* la' for the confir ation of i perfect title#

Second, assu in that the /ot 'as aliena8le and disposa8le land prior to the issuance of EO )) in1 +>, EO )) reser(ed the /ot as a 'atershed# Since then, the /ot 8eca e non!disposa8le andinaliena8le pu8lic land# At the ti e petitioners filed their application on April 2%, 1 3%, the /ot has8een reser(ed as a 'atershed under EO )) for 31 *ears prior to the filin of petitioners@ application#

The period of occupanc* after the issuance of EO )) in 1 +> could no lon er 8e counted 8ecauseas a 'atershed reser(ation, the /ot 'as no lon er suscepti8le of occupanc*, disposition,con(e*ance or alienation# Section >3 689 of CA 1>1, as a ended, applies e4clusi(el* to aliena8le

and disposa8le pu8lic a ricultural land# orest lands, includin 'atershed reser(ations, aree4cluded# It is a4io atic that the possession of forest lands or other inaliena8le pu8lic lands cannotripen into pri(ate o'nership# In


11/47

No# 1>1, as a ended, is enou h to (est upon petitioner "ordula the 7pri(ate ri hts7 reco ni-ed andrespected in Procla ation No# %&)#

The case la' does not support this su8 ission# In Director of /ands (s# $e*es, 'e held that a settler clai in the protection of 7pri(ate ri hts7 to e4clude his land fro a ilitar* or forest reser(ationust sho' 74 4 4 8* clear and con(incin e(idence that the propert* in 5uestion 'as ac5uired 8*

:an*; 4 4 4 eans for the ac5uisition of pu8lic lands#7

In fine, one clai in 7pri(ate ri hts7 ust pro(e that he has co plied 'ith C#A# No# 1>1, asa ended, other'ise kno'n as the Pu8lic /and Act, 'hich prescri8es the su8stanti(e as 'ell as theprocedural re5uire ents for ac5uisition of pu8lic lands# This la' re5uires at least thirt* 6)+9 *ears ofopen, continuous, e4clusi(e and notorious possession and possession of a ricultural lands of thepu8lic do ain, under a 8ona fide clai of ac5uisition, i ediatel* precedin the filin of theapplication for free patent# The rationale for the )+!*ear period lies in the presu ption that the landapplied for pertains to the State, and that the occupants and or possessors clai an interest thereinonl* 8* (irtue of their i perfect title or continuous, open and notorious possession#7

Ne4t, petitioners ar ue that assu in no pri(ate ri hts had attached to the /ot prior to EO )) in

1 +>, the President of the Philippines had su8se5uentl* se re ated the /ot fro the pu8lic do ainand ade the /ot aliena8le and disposa8le 'hen he issued Procla ation No# 123) on June 21,1 &># Petitioners contend that Procla ation No# 123) e4pressl* e4cluded an area of ),&3+ hectaresfro the and 10, 8oth series of 1 1%, 'hich esta8lished the =atershed$eser(ation situated in the


12/47

arked 717 on sketch plan, 8ein N!&>@!)+ E, 3>3+#++ eters ore or less, fro .//< 1, Antipolo,$i-alF thence N ))@ 23 = 1%&%#++ # to point 2F thence N >+@ 20 = 1%)3#%+ # to point )F thence N)+@ %+= %+)#1& # to point >F thence N &%@ +2 = &+>#)) # to point %F thence N 1>@ 13 = 1) #)# to point 0F thence N >)@ 2% = >&+> # to point &F thence N &1@ )3 = >%3#)0 # to point 3Fthence N )1@ +% = 1+2%#++ # to point F thence Due North > +#)3 # to point 1+F thence Due North1+&%#++ # to point 11F thence Due East 1+++#++ # to point 12F thence Due East 1+++#++ # to

point 1)F thence Due East 1+++#++ # to point 1>F thence Due East 1+++#++ # to point 1%F thenceDue East 1+++#++ # to point 10F thence Due East 1+++#++ # to point 1&F thence Due East 1+&%#++# to point 13F thence Due South 1+++#++ # to point 1 F thence Due South 1+++#++ # to point 2+Fthence Due South 1+++#++ # to point 21F thence Due South 1+++#++ # to point 22F thence DueSouth 1+++#++ # to point 2)F thence Due South 1+++#++ # to point 2>F thence Due South 1+&%#++# to point 2%F thence Due =est 1+++#++ # to point 20F thence Due =est 1+++#++ # to point 2&Fthence Due =est 0)0#%0 # to point of 8e innin # Containin an area of three thousand se(enhundred ei ht* 6),&3+9 ectares, ore or less#

/ot . 6Aliena8le and Disposa8le /and9

A parcel of land 6/ot . of Proposed Poor @ )+ E#, 3>)+#++ #, ore or less, fro.//< 1# Antipolo, $i-alF thence Due =est )0)#>> # to point 2F thence Due =est 1+++#++ # topoint )F thence Due =est 1++#++ # to point >F thence Due =est 1+++#++ # to point %F thence Due=est 1+&%#++ # to point 0F thence Due North 1+++#++ # to point &F thence Due North 1+++#++ #to point 3F thence Due North 1+++#++ # to point F thence Due North 1+++#++ # to point 1+F thenceDue North 1+++#++ # to point 11F thence Due North %+ #02 # to point 12F thence S# )1@ +% E1+2%#++ # to point 1)F thence S &1@ )3 E >%3#)0 # to point 1>F thence S >)@ 2% E >&+> # topoint 1%F thence S 1>@ 13 E 1) #) # to point 10F thence S &%@ +2 E &+>#)) # to point 1&F thenceS# )+@ %+ E %+)#1& # to point 13F thence S >+@ 20 E 1%)3#%+ # to point 1 F thence s ))@ 2) e1%&%#++ to point of 8e innin # Containin an area of one thousand t'o hundred t'ent* fi(e61,22%9 ectares, ore or less#

Note All data are appro4i ate and su8?ect to chan e 8ased on future sur(e*#

IN =ITNESS = E$EO , I a(e hereunto set * hand and caused the seal of the $epu8lic of thePhilippines to 8e affi4ed#

Done in the Cit* of


13/47

A)!>> 8* the An at =atershed $eser(ation# .e innin at a pointarked 717 on the Topo raphic


14/47

7$epu8lic of the Philippines


15/47


16/47

It is o8(ious, 8ased on the facts on record that neither petitioners nor their predecessors!in!interestha(e 8een in open, continuous, e4clusi(e and notorious possession and occupation of the /ot for atleast thirt* *ears i ediatel* precedin the filin of the application for confir ation of title# E(en ifthe* su8 itted sufficient proof that the /ot had 8een e4cluded fro the , petitioners@ possession as of the filin of their applicationon April 2%, 1 3% 'ould ha(e 8een onl* ele(en *ears counted fro the issuance of the procla ation

in 1 &># The result 'ill not chan e e(en if 'e tack in the t'o *ears Sesinando /e*(a alle edl*possessed the /ot fro 1 +2 until the issuance of EO )) in 1 +># Petitioners@ case falters e(en ore8ecause of the issuance of Procla ation No# 10)& on April 13, 1 & Accordin to then DEN$Secretar* ictor $a os, Procla ation No# 10)& re(erted /ot A or the to'nsite reser(ation, 'herepetitioners /ot is supposedl* situated, 8ack to the +

Second Issue =hether the petition for annul ent of ?ud ent

should ha(e 8een i(en due course#

Petitioners fault the Court of Appeals for i(in due course to the $epu8lic@s petition for annul ent of ?ud ent 'hich 'as filed lon after the decision of the land re istration court had alle edl* 8eco efinal and e4ecutor*# The land re istration court rendered its decision on Januar* )+, 1 1 and theSolicitor "eneral recei(ed a cop* of the decision on April 2), 1 1# >1 Petitioners point out that theSolicitor "eneral filed 'ith the Court of Appeals the petition for annul ent of ?ud ent in(okinSection 629 of .P .l # 12 >2 onl* on Au ust 0, 1 1, after the decision had supposedl* 8eco e finaland e4ecutor*#


17/47


18/47

A0

Accordin to inter(enors, the* learned onl* on Jul* )1, 1 1 a8out the pendenc* of /$C Case No#20 !A 8efore the $e ional Trial Court of Antipolo, $i-al# On Au ust 3, 1 1, the* filed a


19/47


20/47

petitioners on one side and those of the DEN$ a'ardees on the other# It also spa'ned a nu 8er ofcri inal cases 8et'een the t'o ri(al roups includin alicious ischief, ro88er* and arson# A strictapplication of the rules 'ould 8lur this 8i er, far ore i portant picture#

= E$E O$E, the Petition is DENIED# The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 22, 1 2declarin null and (oid the Decision dated Januar* )+, 1 1 of .ranch &1, $e ional Trial Court of

Antipolo, $i-al, in /$C No# 20 !A, /$C $ec# No# N!% 1& is A I$


21/47

This Petition :1; seeks to set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals,:2; dated June 22, 1 2, in CA!"#$# SP No# 2%% &, 'hich declared null and(oid the Decision :); dated Januar* )+, 1 1 of the $e ional Trial Court of

Antipolo, $i-al, .ranch &1, in /$C No# 20 !A, /$C $ec# No# N!% 1& ,confir in the i perfect title of petitioners o(er a parcel of land#

T-e (*ct

On April 2%, 1 3%, petitioner Edna T# Collado filed 'ith the land re istrationcourt an application for re istration of a parcel of land 'ith an appro4i atearea of 1,2++,&00 s5uare eters or 12+#+&00 hectares 6Q/otR for 8re(it*9# The/ot is situated in .aran a* San Isidro 6for erl* kno'n as .oso!8oso9,

Antipolo, $i-al, and co(ered 8* Sur(e* Plan Psu!10202+# Attached to the

application 'as the technical description of the /ot as /ot Psu!10202+ si ned8* $o8ert C# Pan *arihan, Officer!in!Char e of the Sur(e* Di(ision, .ureau of /ands, 'hich stated, [t]his survey is inside IN-12 MariquinaWatershed. R On , 1 30, petitioner Edna T# Collado filed an

A ended Application to include additional co!applicants# :>; Su8se5uentl*, oreapplicants ?oined 6collecti(el* referred to as QpetitionersR for 8re(it*9# :%;

The $epu8lic of the Philippines, throu h the Solicitor "eneral, and the


22/47

2. DIOSDADO LE)#A, is the son of Sesinando /e*(a, 'ho /+-er/te thepropert*# e had the 5ro5ert re r e e in his na e on "* 2192:,182: 6E4hi8it Q R and Q !1RF testi on* of : 6E4hi8it Q R9# Durin the o'nership of thepropert* 8* An elina $e*noso, "*r/*+o Le * the randson of Sesinando /e*(a,the pre(ious o'ner, attended to the far # 6Testi on* of : , under T*? Dec=*r*t/o+ No. :77> on ;A @ t 186> , under T*? Dec=*r*t/o+ No. 1684>on 1> Dece ber 187> , andunder T*? Dec=*r*t/o+ No. 0;90614> on 2> ! +e 187: #

>. ")RNA TORRES 8ou ht the propert* fro An elina $e*noso on 16 October 18:2 throu h a Dee o S*=e 6E4hi8it Q"R9#

6. EDNA COLLADO 8ou ht the propert* fro 6E4hi8it QGR to QG!)R9#

:. And ore * /t/o+*= O +er !OSEP$ N%NE' , DIOSDADO A$ENOS, DANI/OA.$E"AS, E$NANDO TO$$ES, /H TH.HN".ANHA, CA$IDAD THTANA,JOSE TO$$ES J$#, $OD$I"O THTANA, $OSA/IE THTANA, NO$


23/47

T-e Tr/*= Co rt R =/+@

After appraisal of the e(idence su8 itted 8* petitioners, the landre istration court held that petitioners had adduced sufficient e(idence to

esta8lish their re istra8le ri hts o(er the /ot# Accordin l*, the court rendereda decision confir in the i perfect title of petitioners# =e 5uote the pertinentportions of the court@s decision, as follo's

From the evidence presented, the Court finds that from the testimony of thewitnesses presented by the Applicants, the property applied for is in actual, open,

public and notorious possession by the applicants and their predecessor-in-interestsince time immemorial and said possession had been testified to by witnesses JimmyTorres, Mariano Leyva, er!io Monteale!re, Jose Amo and one Chona who were allcross-e"amined by Counsel for #ppositor $epublic of the %hilippines&

'vidence was li(ewise presented that said property was declared for ta"ation purposesin the names of the previous owners and the correspondin! ta"es were paid by theApplicants and the previous owners and said property was planted to fruit bearin!trees) portions to palay and portions used for !ra*in! purposes&

To the mind of the Court, Applicants have presented sufficient evidence to establishre!istrable title over said property applied for by them&

#n the claim that the property applied for is within the Mari(ina +atershed, the Court

can only add that all %residential %roclamations li(e the %roclamation settin! aside theMari(ina +atershed are sub ect to private ri!hts&

.n the case of Municipality of antia!o vs& Court of Appeals, /01 C$A 234, /563private ri!hts is proof of ac7uisition throu!h 8sic9 amon! means of ac7uisition of

public lands&

.n the case of :irector of Lands vs& $eyes, ;6 C$A /53-/5


24/47

At any rate, the Court notes that evidence was presented by the applicants that as perCertification issued by the =ureau of Forest :evelopment dated March /6, /561, thearea applied for was verified to be within the area e"cluded from the operation of theMari(ina +atershed Lands '"ecutive #rder >o& 33 dated July 0;, /514 per%roclamation >o& /063 promul!ated on June 0/, /524 which established the =oso-

boso Town ite $eservation, amended by %roclamation >o& /;32 dated April /6, /522(nown as the Lun!sod ilan!an Townsite $eservation& 8'"hibit ? 9& @2

In a otion dated April %, 1 1, recei(ed 8* the Solicitor "eneral on April0, 1 1, petitioners alle ed that the decision dated Januar* )+, 1 1confir in their title had 8eco e final after the Solicitor "eneral recei(ed acop* of the decision on e8ruar* 13, 1 1# Petitioners pra*ed that the landre istration court order the /and $e istration Authorit* to issue the necessar*decree in their fa(or o(er the /ot#

On April 11, 1 1, the Solicitor "eneral in5uired fro the Pro(incialProsecutor of $i-al 'hether the land re istration court had alread* rendered adecision and if so, 'hether the Pro(incial Prosecutor 'ould reco end anappeal# o'e(er, the Pro(incial Prosecutor failed to ans'er the 5uer*#

Accordin to the Solicitor "eneral, he recei(ed on April 2), 1 1 a cop* of the land re istration court@s decision dated Januar* )+, 1 1, and not one8ruar* 13, 1 1 as alle ed 8* petitioners in their otion#

In the eanti e, on


25/47

The Court of Appeals ranted the otion to inter(ene (er8all* durin thepreli inar* conference held on April 0, 1 2# Durin the preli inar*conference, all the parties as represented 8* their respecti(e counsels a reedthat the onl* issue for resolution 'as 'hether the /ot in 5uestion is part of thepu8lic do ain# :3;

T-e Co rt o A55e*= R =/+@

In a decision dated June 22, 1 2, the Court of Appeals ranted thepetition and declared null and (oid the decision dated Januar* )+, 1 1 of theland re istration court# The Court of Appeals e4plained thus

Bnder the $e!alian :octrine, which is enshrined in the /53< 8Art& ..., ec& /9, /523

8Art& .D, ec& 69, and /562 Constitution 8Art& .., ec& 09, all lands of the publicdomain belon! to the tate& An applicant, li(e the private respondents herein, forre!istration of a parcel of land bears the burden of overcomin! the presumption thatthe land sou!ht to be re!istered forms part of the public domain 8:irector of Lands vs&A7uino, /50 C$A 05;9&

A positive Act of !overnment is needed to declassify a public land and to convert itinto alienable or disposable land for a!ricultural or other purposes 8$epublic vs&=acas, /2; C$A 32;9&

.n the case at bar, the private respondents failed to present any evidence whatsoeverthat the land applied for as described in %su-/;0;01 has been se!re!ated from the bul( of the public domain and declared by competent authority to be alienable anddisposable& +orse, the technical description of %su-/;0;01 si!ned by $obert C&%an!yarihan, #fficer-in-Char!e, urvey :ivision, =ureau of Lands, which wasattached to the application of private respondents, cate!orically stated that EThissurvey is inside .>-/0 Mari7uina +atershed&E

That the land in 7uestion is within the Mari(ina +atershed $eservation is confirmed by the Administrator of the >ational Land Titles and :eeds in a $eport, dated March

0, /566, submitted to the respondent Court in L$ Case >o& 0;5-A& Thesedocuments readily and effectively ne!ate the alle!ation in private respondentCollado s application that said parcel of land (nown as %su-/;0;01 is not covered byany form of title, nor any public land application and are not within any !overnmentreservation 8%ar& 6, Application) 'mphasis supplied9& The respondent court could nothave missed the import of these vital documents which are bindin! upon the courtsinasmuch as it is the e"clusive prero!ative of the '"ecutive :epartment to classify
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn8


26/47

public lands& They should have forewarned the respondent ud!e from assumin! urisdiction over the case&

" " " inasmuch as the said properties applied for by petitioners are part of the publicdomain, it is the :irector of Lands who has urisdiction in the disposition of the same8sub ect to the approval of the ecretary of >atural $esources and 'nvironment9, andnot the courts& " " " 'ven assumin! that petitioners did have the said propertiessurveyed even before the same was declared to be part of the =usol Forest$eservation, the fact remains that it was so converted into a forest reservation, thus itis with more reason that this action must fail& Forest lands are inalienable and

possession thereof, no matter how lon!, cannot convert the same into private property& And courts are without urisdiction to ad udicate lands within the forest*one& 8Geirs of Human!an vs& Court of Appeals& /20 C$A T.>H TG' A%%L.CAT.#> #F TG' %'T.T.#>'$ F#$ C#>F.$MAT.#>#F T.TL')

II

+G'TG'$ TG' C#B$T #F A%%'AL '$$': #$ H$AD'LI A=B ': .T:. C$'T.#> .> H.D.>H :B' C#B$ ' T# TG' %'T.T.#> F#$A>>BLM'>T #F JB:HM'>T F.L': =I TG' $'%B=L.C L#>H AFT'$ TG':'C. .#> #F TG' T$.AL C#B$T GA: ='C#M' F.>AL)

III
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn9


27/47

+G'TG'$ TG' C#B$T #F A%%'AL '$$': #$ H$AD'LI A=B ': .T:. C$'T.#> .> H.D.>H :B' C#B$ ' T# TG' .>T'$D'>#$ %'T.T.#>F#$ .>T'$D'>T.#> +G.CG +A F.L': #BT #F T.M' #$ L#>H AFT'$TG' :'C. .#> #F TG' T$.AL C#B$T GA: ='C#M' F.>AL&

T-e Co rt R =/+@

The petition is 8ereft of erit#

First Issue: whether petitioners have re istra!"e tit"e over the #ot.

There is no dispute that E4ecuti(e Order No# )) 6QEO ))R for 8re(it*9 datedJul* 20, 1 +> :1+; esta8lished the


28/47

The Laws of the Indies 'ere follo'ed 8* the Ley ipoteca!ia or the "o!t#a#e Law of 1$%&' The Spanish or the Qo& 50;, the first %ublic Land Act, was passed in pursuance of the provisions of

the %hilippine =ill of /510& The law !overned the disposition of lands of the publicdomain& .t prescribed rules and re!ulations for the homesteadin!, sellin! and leasin!of portions of the public domain of the %hilippine .slands, and prescribed the termsand conditions to enable persons to perfect their titles to public lands in the .slands& .talso provided for the issuance of patents to certain native settlers upon public lands,for the establishment of town sites and sale of lots therein, for the completion ofimperfect titles, and for the cancellation or confirmation of panish concessions and!rants in the .slands& In short, the Public Land Act operated on the assumptionthat title to public lands in the Philippine Islands remained in the government;and that the governments title to public land sprung from the Treaty of

Paris and other subsequent treaties between pain and the !nited tates" Theterm public land referred to all lands of the public domain whose title still remainedin the !overnment and are thrown open to private appropriation and settlement, ande"cluded the patrimonial property of the !overnment and the friar lands& @/;

Thus, it is plain error for petitioners to ar ue that under the Philippine .ill of 1 +2 and Pu8lic /and Act No# 20, ere possession 8* pri(ate indi(iduals of lands creates the le al presu ption that the lands are aliena8le anddisposa8le#

Act 23&>, the second Pu8lic /and Act, superseded Act No# 20 in 1 1 # After the passa e of the 1 )% Constitution, Co on'ealth Act No# 1>1 6QCA1>1R for 8re(it*9 a ended Act 23&> in 1 )0# CA 1>1, as a ended, re ains tothis da* as the e4istin eneral la' o(ernin the classification anddisposition of lands of the pu8lic do ain other than ti 8er and ineral lands# :1&;

In the eanti e, in order to esta8lish a s*ste of re istration 8* 'hichrecorded title 8eco es a8solute, indefeasi8le and i prescripti8le, the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn17


29/47

le islature passed Act > 0, other'ise kno'n as the /and $e istration Act,'hich took effect on e8ruar* 1, 1 +)# Act > 0 placed all re istered lands inthe Philippines under the Torrens s*ste # :13; The Torrens s*ste re5uires theo(ern ent to issue a certificate of title statin that the person na ed in thetitle is the o'ner of the propert* descri8ed therein, su8?ect to liens andencu 8rances annotated on the title or reser(ed 8* la'# The certificate of titleis indefeasi8le and i prescripti8le and all clai s to the parcel of land are5uieted upon issuance of the certificate# :1 ; PD 1%2 , kno'n as the Propert*$e istration Decree enacted on June 11, 1 &3, :2+; a ended and updated Act> 0#

$he 1*+, 1* + 1* 0hi"ippine onstitutions

The 1 )%, 1 &) and 1 3& Constitutions adopted the $e alian doctrinesu8stitutin , ho'e(er, the state, in lieu of the in , as the o'ner of all landsand 'aters of the pu8lic do ain# :21; Justice $e*nato S# Puno, in his separateopinion in ru vs. 3e'retary o4 5nviron6ent and Natura" %esour'es:22; e4plained thus

#ne of the fi"ed and dominatin! ob ectives of the /53< Constitutional Conventionwas the nationali*ation and conservation of the natural resources of thecountry& There was an overwhelming sentiment in the Convention in favor of the

principle of state ownership of natural resources and the adoption of the Regaliandoctrine . tate ownership of natural resources was seen as a necessary startin! pointto secure reco!nition of the state s power to control their disposition, e"ploitation,development, or utili*ation& The dele!ates to the Constitutional Convention very well(new that the concept of tate ownership of land and natural resources was introduced

by the paniards, however, they were not certain whether it was continued and applied by the Americans& To remove all doubts, the Convention approved the provision inthe Constitution affirmin! the $e!alian doctrine&

Thus, Section 1, Article III :2); of the 1%&( Constitution, on QConser(ationand Htili-ation of Natural $esourcesR 8arred the alienation of all naturalresources e4cept pu8lic a ricultural lands, 'hich 'ere the onl* naturalresources the State could alienate# The 1%)& Constitution reiterated the

$e alian doctrine in Section 3, Article I:2>;

on the QNational Econo * and thePatri on* of the NationR# The 1 3& Constitution reaffir ed the $e aliandoctrine in Section 2 of Article II :2%; on QNational Econo * and Patri on*R#

.oth the 1 )% and 1 &) Constitutions prohi8ited the alienation of allnatural resources e4cept a ricultural lands of the pu8lic do ain# The 1 3&Constitution readopted this polic*# Indeed, all lands of the pu8lic do ain as
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn25


30/47

'ell as all natural resources enu erated in the Philippine Constitution 8elonto the State#

Watershed %eservation is a Natura" %esour'e

The ter Qnatural resourceR includes Qnot onl* ti 8er, as, oil coal,inerals, lakes, and su8 er ed lands, 8ut also, features 'hich suppl* ahu an need and contri8ute to the health, 'elfare, and 8enefit of a co unit*,and are essential to the 'ell!8ein thereof and proper en?o* ent of propert*de(oted to park and recreational purposes#R :20;

In 3ta. %osa %ea"ty &eve"op6ent orp. vs. ourt o4 (ppea"s et a" #,:2&; the Court had occasion to discourse on 'atershed areas# The Courtresol(ed the issue of 'hether the parcel of land 'hich the Depart ent of En(iron ent and Natural $esources had assessed to 8e a 'atershed area ise4e pt fro the co(era e of $A No# 00%& or the Co prehensi(e A rarian

$efor /a' 6QCA$/R for 8re(it*9# :23; The Court defined 'atershed as Qan areadrained 8* a ri(er and its tri8utaries and enclosed 8* a 8oundar* or di(ide'hich separates it fro ad?acent 'atersheds#R o'e(er, the Court alsoreco ni-ed that

The definition does not e"actly depict the comple"ities of a watershed& The mostimportant product of a watershed is water which is one of the most important humannecessit8ies9& The protection of watershed ensures an ade7uate supply of water forfuture !enerations and the control of flashfloods that not only dama!e property butalso cause loss of lives& %rotection of watersheds is an inter!enerational

responsibility that needs to be answered now&

Article 0& of the =ater Code of the Philippines 6PD 1+0&9 pro(ides

Art& ;2& Any watershed or any area of land ad acent to any surface water oroverlyin! any !round water may be declared by the :epartment of >atural $esourcesas a protected area& $ules and $e!ulations may be promul!ated by such :epartmentto prohibit or control such activities by the owners or occupants thereof within the

protected area which may dama!e or cause the deterioration of the surface water or!round water or interfere with the investi!ation, use, control, protection, mana!ement

or administration of such waters&

The Court in 3ta. %osa %ea"ty also reco ni-ed the need to protect'atershed areas and took note of the report of the Ecos*ste s $esearch andDe(elop ent .ureau 6E$D.9, a research ar of the DEN$, re ardin theen(iron ental assess ent of the Casile and a8an a!an ri(er 'atershedsin(ol(ed in that case# That report concluded as follo's
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/112526.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/112526.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/112526.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn28


31/47


32/47

First # An applicant for confir ation of i perfect title 8ears the 8urden of pro(in that he eets the re5uire ents of Section >3 of CA 1>1, asa ended# e ust o(erco e the presu ption that the land he is appl*in for is part of the pu8lic do ain and that he has an interest therein sufficient to'arrant re istration in his na e arisin fro an i perfect title# An i perfecttitle a* ha(e 8een deri(ed fro old Spanish rants such as a titulo !eal or ro*al rant, a concession especial or special rant, a composicion con el estado or ad?ust ent title, or a titulo de comp!a or title throu h purchase# :2 ; Or,that he has had continuous, open and notorious possession and occupation of a ricultural lands of the pu8lic do ain under a 8ona fide clai of o'nershipfor at least thirt* *ears precedin the filin of his application as pro(ided 8*Section >3 689 CA 1>1#

Ori inall*, Section >3689 of CA 1>1 pro(ided for possession andoccupation of lands of the pu8lic do ain since Jul* 20, 13 ># This 'as

superseded 8* $A 1 >2 'hich pro(ided for a si ple thirt*!*ear prescripti(eperiod of occupation 8* an applicant for ?udicial confir ation of an i perfecttitle# The sa e, ho'e(er, has alread* 8een a ended 8* Presidential DecreeNo# 1+&), appro(ed on Januar* 2%, 1 &&, the la' pre(ailin at the ti epetitioners@ application for re istration 'as filed on April 2%, 1 3%# :)+; Asa ended, Section >3 689 no' reads

8b9 Those who by themselves or throu!h their predecessors-in-interest have been inopen, continuous, e"clusive and notorious possession and occupation of a!riculturallands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of ac7uisition or ownership, for at

least thirty years immediately precedin! the filin! of the application for confirmationof title, e"cept when prevented by wars or force majeure & Those shall be conclusively

presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Hovernment !rant andshall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter&

Interpretin Section >3 689 of CA 1>1, the Court stated that the Pu8lic/and Act re5uires that the applicant ust pro(e the follo'in

8a9 that the land is alienable public land and 8b9 that his open, continuous, e"clusiveand notorious possession and occupation of the same must either be since time

immemorial or for the period prescribed in the %ublic Land Act& +hen the conditionsset by law are complied with, the possessor of the land, by operation of law, ac7uires ari!ht to a !rant, a !overnment !rant, without the necessity of a certificate of title bein!issued& @3/

Petitioners do not clai to ha(e docu entar* title o(er the /ot# Their ri ht tore ister the /ot is predicated ainl* upon continuous possession since 1 +2#
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn31


33/47

Clearl*, petitioners 'ere una8le to ac5uire a (alid and enforcea8le ri ht or title 8ecause of the failure to co plete the re5uired period of possession,'hether under the ori inal Section >3 689 of CA 1>1 prior to the issuance of EO )), or under the a end ent 8* $A 1 >2 and PD 1+&)#

There is no proof that prior to the issuance of EO )) in 1 +>, petitionershad ac5uired o'nership or title to the /ot either 8* deed or 8* an* other odeof ac5uisition fro the State, as for instance 8* ac5uisiti(e prescription# As of 1 +>, Sesinando /e*(a had onl* 8een in possession for t'o *ears# eril*,petitioners ha(e not possessed the parcel of land in the anner and for thenu 8er of *ears re5uired 8* la' for the confir ation of i perfect title#

3e'ond , assu in that the /ot 'as aliena8le and disposa8le land prior tothe issuance of EO )) in 1 +>, EO )) reser(ed the /ot as a'atershed# Since then, the /ot 8eca e non!disposa8le and inaliena8le pu8licland# At the ti e petitioners filed their application on April 2%, 1 3%, the /othas 8een reser(ed as a 'atershed under EO )) for 31 *ears prior to the filinof petitioners@ application#

The period of occupanc* after the issuance of EO )) in 1 +> could nolon er 8e counted 8ecause as a 'atershed reser(ation, the /ot 'as no lon er suscepti8le of occupanc*, disposition, con(e*ance or alienation# Section >3689 of CA 1>1, as a ended, applies e4clusi(el* to aliena8le and disposa8lepu8lic a ricultural land# orest lands, includin 'atershed reser(ations, aree4cluded# It is a4io atic that the possession of forest lands or other inaliena8le pu8lic lands cannot ripen into pri(ate o'nership# In Muni'ipa"ity o4 3antia o Isa!e"a vs. ourt o4 (ppea"s :)2; the Court declared thatinaliena8le pu8lic lands !

" " " cannot be ac7uired by ac7uisitive prescription& %rescription, both ac7uisitiveand e"tinctive, does not run a!ainst the tate&

KThe possession of public land, however lon! the period may have e"tended, neverconfers title thereto upon the possessor because the statute of limitations with re!ardto public land does not operate a!ainst the tate, unless the occupant can prove

possession and occupation of the same under claim of ownership for the required

number of years to constitute a grant from the State.

$hird , 7ordu"a vs. ourt o4 (ppea" s :)); is in point# In 7ordu"a , petitionersdid not contest the nature of the land# The* ad itted that the land lies in theheart of the Calira*a!/u ot $i(er orest $eser(e, 'hich Procla ation No#%&) classified as inaliena8le# The petitioners in 7ordu"a contended, ho'e(er,that Procla ation No# %&) itself reco ni-es pri(ate ri hts of lando'ners prior
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jan1998/127296.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jan1998/127296.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jan1998/127296.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jan1998/127296.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn33


34/47

to the reser(ation# The* clai to ha(e esta8lished their pri(ate ri hts to thesu8?ect land# The Court ruled

+e do not a!ree& >o public land can be ac7uired by private persons without any!rant, e"press or implied from the !overnment) it is indispensable that there be ashowin! of a title from the state& The facts show that petitioner Hordula did notac7uire title to the sub ect land prior to its reservation under %roclamation >o&o& onetheless, petitioners insist that the term, private ri!hts, in %roclamation >o& , the President of the Philippines had su8se5uentl*


35/47

se re ated the /ot fro the pu8lic do ain and ade the /ot aliena8le anddisposa8le 'hen he issued Procla ation No# 123) on June 21,1 &># Petitioners contend that Procla ation No# 123) e4pressl* e4cluded anarea of ),&3+ hectares fro the H F$#M TG' #%'$AT.#> ' 'CBT.D' #$:'$ >#& 33, :AT':JBLI 0;, /514, A AM'>:': =I ' 'CBT.D' #$:'$ ># & /4 A>: /;,=#TG '$.' #F /5/ TG' MB>.C.%AL.TI #F A>T.%#L#,%$#D.>C' #F $. AL, . LA>: #F LB #>, A C'$TA.> %#$T.#> #F TG'LA>: 'M=$AC': TG'$'.> A>: $' '$D.>H TG' AM', T#H'TG'$+.TG TG' A:JAC'>T %A$C'L #F LA>: #F TG' %B=L.C :#MA.>, F#$T#+> .T' %B$%# ' B>:'$ TG' %$#D. .#> #F CGA%T'$ . #F TG'%B=L.C LA>: ACT&

Bpon recommendation of the ecretary of A!riculture and >atural $esources and pursuant to the authority vested in me by law, ., F'$:.>A>: '& MA$C# ,%resident of the %hilippines, do hereby, e"clude from the operation of '"ecutive #rder

>o& 33 dated July 0;, /514, as amended by '"ecutive #rders >os& /4 and /;, bothseries of /5/-09, situated in the municipality of Antipolo, %rovince of$i*al, .sland of Lu*on, be!innin! at a point mar(ed / on s(etch plan, bein! >-24 -31 ', 6461&11 meters more or less, from =LLM /, Antipolo, $i*al) thence > 33 06 +/


36/47

2< 10 + 214&33 m& to point /4 /6 +/355&35 m& to point ;) thence > 43 0< + 422&14 m& to point 2) thence > 2/ 36 +4 3/ 1< + /10orth451&36 m& to point /1) thence :ue >orth /12 +.T>' +G'$'#F, . Gave hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the$epublic of the %hilippines to be affi"ed&

:one in the City of Manila, this 0/ st day of June, in the year of #ur Lord, nineteenhundred and seventy-four&

8 !d&9 F'$:.>A>: '& MA$C#


37/47

%resident$epublic of the %hilippines

Procla ation No# 123) has since 8een a ended 8* Procla ation No#10)& issued on April 13, 1 & Procla ation No# 10)& re(ised the area and

location of the proposed to'nsite# Accordin to then DEN$ Secretar* ictor O# $a os, Procla ation No# 10)& e4cluded /ot A 6of 'hich the /ot clai ed8* petitioners is part9 for to'nsite purposes and re(erted it to ; Procla ation No# 10)& reads

%$#CLAMAT.#> >#& /;32

AM'>:.>H %$#CLAMAT.#> >#& /063, :AT': JB>' 0/, /524, +G.CG' TA=L. G': TG' T#+> .T' $' '$DAT.#> .> TG' MB>.C.%AL.T.' #FA>T.%#L# A>: A> MAT'#, %$#D.>C' #F $. AL, . LA>: #F LB #> =I

.>C$'A .>H TG' A$'A A>: $'D. .>H TG' T'CG>.CAL :' C$.%T.#>#F TG' LA>: 'M=$AC': TG'$'.>, A>: $'D#?.>H%$#CLAMAT.#> >#& 2;< :AT': #CT#='$ 0;, /521 TGAT $' '$D':%#$T.#> #F TG' A$'A A $' 'TTL'M'>T .T'&

Bpon recommendation of the ecretary of >atural $esources and pursuant to theauthority vested in me by law, ., F'$:.>A>: '& MA$C# , %resident of the%hilippines, do hereby amend %roclamation >o& /063, dated June 0/, /524 whichestablished the townsite reservation in the municipalities of Antipolo and an Mateo,%rovince of $i*al, .sland of Lu*on, by increasin! the area and revisin! the technical

descriptions of the land embraced therein, sub ect to private ri!hts, if any there be,which parcel of land is more particularly described as followsN

8%roposed Lun!sod ilan!an Townsite9

A %A$C'L #F LA>: 8%roposed Lun!sod ilan!an Townsite $eservation amendin!the area under +#-4/2;0 establishin! the =a!on! ilan!an Townsite $eservation9situated in the Municipalities of Antipolo, an Mateo, and Montalban, %rovince of$i*al, .sland of Lu*on& =ounded on the '&, alon! lines /-0-3-4-


38/47

""" """ """

>#T'N All data are appro"imate and sub ect to chan!e based on future survey&

%roclamation >o& 2;< dated #ctober 0;, /521, which covered areas entirely withinthe herein Lun!sod ilan!an Townsite, is hereby revo(ed accordin!ly&

.> +.T>' +G'$'#F, . have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the$epublic of the %hilippines to be affi"ed&

:one in the City of Manila, this /6th day of April, in the year of #ur Lord, nineteenhundred and seventy-seven&

8 !d&9 F'$:.>A>: '& MA$C#%resident of the %hilippines

A positi(e act 6e# #, an official procla ation9 of the E4ecuti(e Depart entis needed to declassif* land 'hich had 8een earlier classified as a 'atershedreser(ation and to con(ert it into aliena8le or disposa8le land for a riculturalor other purposes# :)%; Hnless and until the land classified as such is released inan official procla ation so that it a* for part of the disposa8le a riculturallands of the pu8lic do ain, the rules on confir ation of i perfect title do notappl*# :)0;

The principal docu ent presented 8* petitioners to pro(e the pri(atecharacter of the /ot is the Certification of the .ureau of orest De(elop entdated .D

'L AL =uildin!/11 Oue*on Avenue, Oue*on City

MA$ /6 /56;

D'$.F.CAT.#> #> TG' TATB #F LA>:N

T# +G#M .T MAI C#>C'$>N
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn36


39/47

This is to certify that the tract of land situated in =aran!ay an .sidro, Antipolo, $i*al,containin! an area of /,0;5,2;; s7uare meters, as shown and described on the reverseside hereof, surveyed by Heodetic 'n!ineer Telesforo Cabadin! for An!elina C&$eynoso, is verified to be within the area e"cluded from the operation of Mari(ina+atershed $eservation established under '"ecutive #rder >o& 33 dated July 0;, /514

per %roclamation >o& /063, promul!ated on June 0/, /524, which established the=oso-=oso Townsite $eservation, amended by proclamation >o& /;32 dated April /6,/522 (nown as Lun!sod ilan!an Townsite $eservation&

ub ect area also falls within the bounds of =a!on! Lipunan ite under %&:& /35;dated June 0, /526 under the sole urisdiction of the Ministry of Guman ettlements,to the e"clusion of any other !overnment a!encies&

This verification is made upon the re7uest of the Chief, Le!al taff, $-4 as containedin his internal memorandum dated March /6, /56;&

Derified byN

8 !d9 $#M'# C& %A CB=.LL#Carto!rapher ..

Chec(ed byN

8 !d9 A$M'>:# $& C$Bupervisin! Carto!rapher

ATT' T':N

8 !d9 LB. H& :ACA>AIChief, Forest 'n!ineerin! P

.nfrastructure ection

The a8o(e certification on 'hich petitioners rel* that a reclassification hadoccurred, and that the /ot is co(ered 8* the reclassification, is contradicted 8*se(eral docu ents su8 itted 8* the Solicitor "eneral 8efore the land

re istration court#The Solicitor "eneral su8 itted to the land re istration court a

$eport :)&; dated


40/47

C#M' >#+ the Administrator of the >ational Land Titles and :eeds $e!istrationCommission and to this Gonorable Court respectfully reports thatN

1# A parcel of land descri8ed in plan Psu!10202+ situated in the .arrio of San Isidro,3 and 'asissued Decree No# N!1 12>2 on April >, 1 30 in the na e of Apolonia "arcia, et al#,pursuant to the Decision and Order for Issuance of the Decree dated e8ruar* 3,1 3> and , respecti(el*, and the re ainin portion of plan Psu!10202+ is inside IN!12, :$': T+'>TI . %#.>T '$# 'D'>. TI . 8/0;&12;;9 hectares, more particularly described in %su-/;0;01, which iswithin the Mari(ina +atershed $eservation under '"ecutive #rder >o& 33 dated July0, /514 which established the Mari(ina +atershed $eservation 8.>-/09 " " "&

" " "

That the land sou!ht to be re!istered is not a private property of the $e!istrationApplicant but part of the public domain, not sub ected to disposition and is covered by%roclamation >o& o& 0;5-A is recommended for re ection 8Bnderlinin! supplied9& Copy of the letter isattached herewith as Anne" 3 and made an inte!ral part hereof&

/astl*, the Solicitor "eneral pointed out that attached to petitioner Edna T#Collado@s :as ori inal applicant; application is the technical description :) ; of the/ot si ned 8* $o8ert C# Pan *arihan, Officer!in!Char e of the Sur(e* Di(isionof the .ureau of /ands# This technical description cate oricall* stated that the/ot Qis inside IN-12 Mariquina Watershed.8

The e(idence of record thus appears unsatisfactor* and insufficient tosho' clearl* and positi(el* that the /ot had 8een officiall* released fro the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/oct2002/107764.htm#_ftn39


41/47

# The result 'ill not chan e e(en if 'e tack in the t'o*ears Sesinando /e*(a alle edl* possessed the /ot fro 1 +2 until theissuance of EO )) in 1 +># Petitioners@ case falters e(en ore 8ecause of the issuance of Procla ation No# 10)& on April 13, 1 & Accordin to thenDEN$ Secretar* ictor $a os, Procla ation No# 10)& re(erted /ot A or theto'nsite reser(ation, 'here petitioners /ot is supposedl* situated, 8ack to the


42/47

Petitioners fault the Court of Appeals for i(in due course to the$epu8lic@s petition for annul ent of ?ud ent 'hich 'as filed lon after thedecision of the land re istration court had alle edl* 8eco e final ande4ecutor*# The land re istration court rendered its decision on Januar* )+,1 1 and the Solicitor "eneral recei(ed a cop* of the decision on April 2),1 1# :>1; Petitioners point out that the Solicitor "eneral filed 'ith the Court of

Appeals the petition for annul ent of ?ud ent in(okin Section 629 of .P.l # 12 :>2; onl* on Au ust 0, 1 1, after the decision had supposedl* 8eco efinal and e4ecutor*# ); as follo's

The Land $e!istration Court has no urisdiction over non-re!istrable properties, suchas public navi!able rivers which are parts of the public domain, and cannot validlyad ud!e the re!istration of title in favor of private applicant& Gence, the ud!ment ofthe Court of First .nstance of %ampan!a as re!ards the Lot >o& 0 of certificate of Title

>o& /


43/47

collaterally, by the tate which is not bound by any prescriptive period provided for by the tatute of Limitations&

=e also hold that en(iron ental conse5uences in this case o(erride concernso(er technicalities and rules of procedure#

In %epu!"i' vs. &e "os (n e"es :>>; 'hich in(ol(ed the re istration of pu8liclands, specificall* parts of the sea, the Court re?ected the principle of !es

*udicata and estoppel to silence the $epu8lic@s clai o(er pu8lic lands# TheCourt said

.t should be noted further that the doctrine of estoppel or laches does not apply whenthe Hovernment sues as a soverei!n or asserts !overnmental ri!hts, nor does estoppelor laches validate an act that contravenes law or public policy, and that res udicata isto be disre!arded if its application would involve the sacrifice of ustice to

technicality&

The Court further held that Rthe ri ht of re(ersion or recon(e*ance to the Stateof the pu8lic properties re istered and 'hich are not capa8le of pri(ateappropriation or pri(ate ac5uisition does not prescri8e#R

$hird issue: Whether the petition-in-intervention is proper.

The .ockasan?o IS A'ardees Association, Inc#, an association of holdersof certificates of ste'ardship issued 8* the DEN$ under its Inte rated Socialorestr* Pro ra , filed 'ith the Court of Appeals on No(e 8er 2 , 1 1 a


44/47

AM'>:.>H FB$TG'$ ' 'CBT.D' #$:'$ >#& 33, :AT': JBLI 0;, /514+G.CG ' TA=L. G': TG' MA$.?.>A +AT'$ G': $' '$DAT.#> 8.>-/09A AM'>:':, =I ' CLB:.>H C'$TA.> %#$T.#> #F LA>:'M=$AC': TG'$'.> .TBAT': AT .T.# =# #=# #, ?.L.>HA>,D'T'$A> , =A$A>HAI A> J# '%G A>: %A'>AA>, MB>.C.%AL.TI #FA>T.%#L#, %$#D.>C' #F $. AL, . LA>: #F LB #>&

Bpon recommendation of the ecretary of 'nvironment and >atural $esources and pursuant to the authority vested in me by law, ., C#$A #> C& AOB.>#, %residentof the %hilippines, do hereby e"clude from the operation of '"ecutive #rder >o& 33,which established the Mari(ina +atershed $eservation, certain parcel of land of the

public domain embraced therein situated in itios =osoboso, Deterans, ?ilin!an and=aran!ay an Joseph and %aenaan, Municipality of Antipolo, %rovince of $i*al and

place the same under the .nte!rated ocial Forestry %ro!ram of the :epartment of'nvironment and >atural $esources in accordance with e"istin! laws, rules andre!ulations, which parcel of land is more particularly described as followsN

A %A$C'L #F LA>:, within the Mari(ina +atershed $eservation situated in theMunicipality of Antipolo, %rovince of $i*al, be!innin! at point / on plan, bein!identical to corner / of Mari(ina +atershed $eservation) thence

""" """ """

Containing an area of One Thousand our !undred Thirty "#$%&'( !ectares.

All other lands covered and embraced under '"ecutive #rder >o& 33 as amended, nototherwise affected by this %roclamation, shall remain in force and effect&

.> +.T>' +G'$'#F, . have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the$epublic of the %hilippines to be affi"ed&

:one in the City of Manila, this < th day of June, in the year of #ur Lord, nineteenhundred and ninety&

8 !d&9 C#$A #> C& AOB.>#

%resident of the %hilippines

Pursuant to Procla ation No# %3%, the chief of the IS Hnit, actin throu hthe $e ional E4ecuti(e Director of the DEN$ 6$e ion I 9, issued so eti e8et'een the *ears 1 3 to 1 1 certificates of ste'ardship contracts to 8onafide residents of the 8aran a*s entioned in the procla ation as 5ualifiedrecipients of the IS pro ra s# A on those a'arded 'ere inter(enors# The


45/47

certificates of ste'ardship are actuall* contracts of lease ranted 8* theDEN$ to actual occupants of parcels of land under its IS pro ra s for aperiod of t'ent*!fi(e 62%9 *ears, rene'a8le for another t'ent*!fi(e 62%9 *ears#:>%; The DEN$ a'arded contracts of ste'ardship to IS participants in.aran a* San Isidro 6or .oso!8oso9 and the other 8aran a*s 8ased on theIn(entor* of orest Occupants the DEN$ had conducted# :>0;

Accordin to inter(enors, the* learned onl* on Jul* )1, 1 1 a8out thependenc* of /$C Case No# 20 !A 8efore the $e ional Trial Court of Antipolo,$i-al# On Au ust 3, 1 1, the* filed a


46/47

vs. ourt o4 (ppea"s :>3; reiterated the rulin in &ire'tor o4 #ands vs. ourt o4 (ppea"s , 'here the Court allo'ed the otions for inter(ention e(en 'hen thecase had alread* reached this Court# Thus, in Ma o the Court held that

.t is 7uite clear and patent that the motions for intervention filed by the movants atthis sta!e of the proceedin!s where trial had already been concluded " " " and onappeal " " " the same affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the instant petition forcertiorari to review said ud!ment is already submitted for decision by the upremeCourt, are obviously and, manifestly late, beyond the period prescribed under " " "ection 0, $ule /0 of the rules of Court&

=ut $ule /0 of the $ules of Court, li(e all other $ules therein promul!ated, is simplya rule of procedure, the whole purpose and ob ect of which is to ma(e the powers ofthe Court fully and completely available for ustice& The purpose of procedure is notto thwart ustice& .ts proper aim is to facilitate the application of ustice to the rivalclaims of contendin! parties& .t was created not to hinder and delay but to facilitateand promote the administration of ustice& .t does not constitute the thin! itself whichcourts are always strivin! to secure to liti!ants& .t is desi!ned as the means bestadopted to obtain that thin!& .n other words, it is a means to an end&

To 8e sure, the Court of Appeals did not pass upon the actual status of inter(enors in relation to the /ot as this 'as not in issue# Neither 'as the(alidit* of the certificates of ste'ardship contracts 'hich inter(enors alle edl*possessed in5uired into considerin this too 'as not in issue# In fact,inter(enors did not specificall* seek an* relief apart fro a declaration that the/ot in 5uestion re ains inaliena8le land of the pu8lic do ain# =e cannot faultthe Court of Appeals for allo'in the inter(ention, if onl* to pro(ide the ri(alroups a peaceful (enue for (entilatin their sides# This case has alread*clai ed at least fi(e li(es due to the ra in dispute 8et'een the ri(al ca ps of the petitioners on one side and those of the DEN$ a'ardees on the other# Italso spa'ned a nu 8er of cri inal cases 8et'een the t'o ri(al roupsincludin alicious ischief, ro88er* and arson# A strict application of therules 'ould 8lur this 8i er, far ore i portant picture#

$ERE(ORE , the Petition is DENIED . The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 22, 1 2 declarin null and (oid the Decision datedJanuar* )+, 1 1 of .ranch &1, $e ional Trial Court of Antipolo, $i-al, in /$CNo# 20 !A, /$C $ec# No# N!% 1& is A I$


47/47

Documents

Collado vs Court of Appeals