Secretary of DENR vs. Yap

A positive act of the Executive is required to classify lands of the public domain as alienable and disposable; absent such classification, unclassified lands are considered public forest where possession, no matter how long, cannot ripen into ownership.

Boracay Island, a premier tourist destination in the Municipality of Malay, Aklan, has been occupied by thousands of inhabitants who declared their lands for tax purposes and developed commercial resorts. In 1978, then President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1801, declaring Boracay a tourist zone and marine reserve. Claiming this proclamation cast doubt on their ability to secure titles, private occupants filed a petition for declaratory relief to assert their right to judicial confirmation of imperfect title under Section 48(b) of CA No. 141, alleging possession since time immemorial or June 12, 1945. The Republic opposed, maintaining Boracay was unclassified public land. During the pendency of the dispute, President Arroyo issued Proclamation No. 1064 in 2006, classifying Boracay into 400 hectares of reserved forest land and 628.96 hectares of agricultural land (alienable and disposable).

• Possession and Tax Declarations: Private claimants declared themselves in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of portions of Boracay since time immemorial or June 12, 1945. They paid realty taxes and invested heavily in resort developments. However, the earliest tax declarations presented were issued only in 1993.
• Proclamation No. 1801 (1978): Declared Boracay a tourist zone and marine reserve under the Philippine Tourism Authority. It did not specify the alienability of the lands but recognized both private lands and public forested areas within the island.
• Proclamation No. 1064 (2006): Issued during the pendency of the case, classifying Boracay into 400 hectares of reserved forest land (protection purposes) and 628.96 hectares of agricultural land (alienable and disposable), with a 15-meter buffer zone on each side of roads and trails reserved for right-of-way forming part of the forest land.
• Existing Titles: The RTC took judicial notice that certain parcels in Boracay (Lots 1 and 30) were already covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 19502 issued in 1933 to the Heirs of Ciriaco S. Tirol.
• Stipulations: The parties stipulated that claimants possessed parcels planted with coconut trees approximately 50 years old and declared them for tax purposes.

• G.R. No. 167707 (Republic/DENR):
  • Land Classification: Boracay is an unclassified land of the public domain, forming part of the mass of lands classified as "public forest" under PD No. 705, which is not available for disposition.
  • Lack of Vested Right: Claimants' reliance on Proclamation No. 1801 is misplaced; their right to judicial confirmation of title is governed by CA No. 141 and PD No. 705. Because Boracay was not classified as alienable and disposable, possession cannot ripen into ownership.
• G.R. No. 173775 (Private Claimants/Sacay, et al.):
  • Deemed Agricultural Land: Under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and Act No. 926, Boracay is deemed agricultural because it is neither mineral nor timber land.
  • Vested Right: Long possession and substantial investments created a vested right to private ownership protected by the due process clause.
  • Invalidity of Proc 1064: Proclamation No. 1064 violates prior vested rights and contravenes Section 4(a) of RA No. 6657 (CARL), which prohibits the reclassification of public forests into agricultural lands without a law delimiting the limits of the public domain.

• G.R. No. 167707 (Private Claimants/Yap, et al.):
  • Tourist Zone Susceptible to Private Ownership: Proclamation No. 1801 and PTA Circular No. 3-82 did not make Boracay inalienable; as a tourist zone, it is susceptible to private ownership.
  • Entitlement under CA 141: Possession since time immemorial or 1945 entitles them to judicial confirmation of imperfect title under Section 48(b) of CA No. 141.
• G.R. No. 173775 (Republic/DENR):
  • No Vested Right: Claimants have no vested right over unclassified public forest land.
  • Executive Prerogative: Only the Executive Department possesses the authority to reclassify lands of the public domain into alienable and disposable lands; a positive government act is required before disposition.

• Classification under Old Laws: Whether the areas occupied by claimants were public agricultural lands under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and Act No. 926, or public forest under PD No. 705.
• Vested Rights: Whether claimants acquired a prior vested right of private ownership over their occupied portions despite not applying for judicial confirmation of imperfect title.
• Executive Declaration: Whether an executive declaration classifying land as alienable and disposable is an indispensable prerequisite for obtaining title under the Torrens system.
• Validity of Proc 1064: Whether Proclamation No. 1064 violates claimants' vested rights or contravenes Section 4(a) of RA No. 6657 (CARL).
• Mandamus: Whether respondents can be compelled by mandamus to allow and approve survey plans for titling purposes.

• Classification under Old Laws: Boracay was an unclassified land of the public domain prior to Proclamation No. 1064. The presumption in Ankron and De Aldecoa—that lands are deemed agricultural until proven otherwise—does not apply because Act No. 926, under which those cases were decided, was superseded by Act No. 2874 and CA No. 141, which vested the exclusive prerogative to classify lands in the Executive. Courts no longer have the authority to determine land classification.
• Vested Rights: No vested right was acquired. Possession of unclassified public land, no matter how long, cannot ripen into ownership. Substantial investments also do not confer title over inalienable public land. Furthermore, claimants failed to prove possession since June 12, 1945, as their earliest tax declarations dated only to 1993.
• Executive Declaration: A positive executive act is an indispensable prerequisite for judicial confirmation of imperfect title. Without an official proclamation classifying the land as alienable and disposable, the land remains inalienable public domain.
• Validity of Proc 1064: Proclamation No. 1064 is valid. It did not violate the CARL because the prohibition against "reclassification" applies only to previously classified forest lands. Boracay was unclassified, hence no reclassification occurred. The President validly exercised her authority under CA No. 141.
• Mandamus: Mandamus does not lie because claimants have no clear legal right to compel the approval of survey plans, given their ineligibility to apply for judicial confirmation of imperfect title under CA No. 141.

• Regalian Doctrine — All lands of the public domain belong to the State, which is the source of any asserted right to ownership. Lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State as part of the inalienable public domain. The State determines whether public lands will be disposed of for private ownership.
• Positive Act Requirement for Land Classification — To overcome the presumption of State ownership, incontrovertible evidence must establish that the land is alienable or disposable. This requires a positive act of the government, such as a presidential proclamation, executive order, administrative action, investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators, or a legislative act.
• Public Forest Definition (PD No. 705) — Unclassified lands of the public domain are considered public forests. The classification is descriptive of legal nature or status, not physical appearance. A forested area does not lose its classification simply because loggers have stripped it, and a commercial area does not become agricultural simply because it lacks trees.
• Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect Title (CA No. 141, Sec. 48(b)) — Two requisites must concur: (1) open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation since June 12, 1945, or earlier; and (2) the land must be classified as alienable and disposable land of the public domain.

• "There must still be a positive act declaring land of the public domain as alienable and disposable. To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, the applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order; an administrative action; investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a legislative act or a statute."
• "The classification is descriptive of its legal nature or status and does not have to be descriptive of what the land actually looks like. Unless and until the land classified as 'forest' is released in an official proclamation to that effect so that it may form part of the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain, the rules on confirmation of imperfect title do not apply."
• "Where the land is not alienable and disposable, possession of the land, no matter how long, cannot confer ownership or possessory rights."

• Ankron v. Government of the Philippine Islands, 40 Phil. 10 (1919) — Distinguished. The presumption that unclassified lands are agricultural until proven otherwise does not apply under CA No. 141, which vests exclusive classification power in the Executive, unlike Act No. 926 under which Ankron was decided.
• Heirs of the Late Spouses Pedro S. Palanca and Soterranea Rafols Vda. De Palanca v. Republic, G.R. No. 151312, August 30, 2006 — Followed. Reaffirmed that courts have no authority to classify public lands and that unclassified lands are public forests.
• Collado v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107764, October 4, 2002 — Followed. Mere possession by private individuals of lands under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and Act No. 926 does not create a legal presumption that the lands are alienable and disposable.
• Heirs of Amunategui v. Director of Forestry, G.R. No. L-27873, November 29, 1983 — Followed. Forest land classification is a legal status, not a description of the land's physical condition.

• Section 48(b), Commonwealth Act No. 141 (Public Land Act), as amended by PD No. 1073 — Requires open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession since June 12, 1945, and that the land be alienable and disposable, for judicial confirmation of imperfect title. Applied to deny claimants because the second requisite was absent prior to 2006.
• Section 3(a), Presidential Decree No. 705 (Revised Forestry Code) — Defines public forest as a mass of lands of the public domain which has not been subject to the present system of classification. Applied to classify Boracay as public forest prior to Proclamation No. 1064.
• Section 4(a), Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) — Prohibits reclassification of forest or mineral lands to agricultural lands without a law delimiting the public domain. Applied to rule that no prohibited "reclassification" occurred because Boracay was previously unclassified.
• Proclamation No. 1064 — Classified Boracay into 400 hectares of reserved forest land and 628.96 hectares of agricultural land. Validly issued by the President pursuant to authority under CA No. 141.
• Proclamation No. 1801 — Declared Boracay a tourist zone and marine reserve. Held not to be a positive act classifying the island as alienable and disposable.

Reynato S. Puno (C.J.), Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Antonio T. Carpio, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Renato C. Corona, Conchita Carpio Morales, Adolfo S. Azcuna, Dante O. Tinga, Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion.