DENR vs. Mayor Jose Yap et.

al
October 08, 2008

REYES R.T. J;

First Case – Petition for for Review on Certiorari (Survey of Boracay for Titling Purposes)
Second Case – Petition for Prohibition, Mandamus, Nullification (Proc. 1064 of Pres. Arroyo classifying Boracay to
Forest and Agricultural Land)

1st case Facts:

President Marcos issued Proclamation 1801 and PTA Circular 3-82 Declaring Boracay et.al. as Tourist
zones and Marine reserves. Due to this, Yap et.al. filed a petition for Declaratory Relief against said proclamation for
it raised doubts over their rights to secure Title over their lands and that they are in Open, Continuous, Exclusive,
and Notorious possession since time immemorial and are paying their real property tax over their lands.
OSG opposed the petition for declaratory relief and countered that Boracay was an “Unclassified Land of the
Public Domain” and since it was not classified as alienable and disposable, their possession thereof cannot ripen
into ownership.
RTC ruled that Proclamation 1801 and Circular 3-82 had no mention that Boracay is Inalienable and the
circular acknowledged private ownership, and only the Forested area were the only part declared as Forest
Reserve.
CA affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC and held that the residents cannot be prejudiced by a declaration
for they are occupying the said lands since time immemorial.

2nd case Facts:

President Arroyo issued Proclamation 1064 classifying Boracay into 400 Hectares for reserved Forest and
628 Hectares as Agricultural Land/Alienable Land
Dr. Orlando Sacay and other land owners filed for Prohibition, Mandamus, and Nullification of Proclamation
1064 alleging that it infringes their “Vested rights” and contended further that they’re in possession thereof since
time immemorial, according to them not being classified as neither mineral nor timber the land is deemed as
Agricultural
OSG averred that there must be a “Positive Act” for such lands to be released for disposition.

(The court consolidated the 2 cases)

Issue: Whether or Not the Respondent-claimants have a right to secure Titles over their occupied lands in Boracay?

RULING:

The Regalian Doctrine Dictates that all lands of the Public Domain belongs to the State, and lands can only be
classified into Agricultural/Forest/National Parks and from which only Agricultural land can only be alienated.

Prior to Proclamation 1064 of Arroyo it had never been classified under any of the divisions; “Boracay is an
Unclassified Land of Public Domain” – All lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed
to belong to the state and it is only the state that can determine whether a land of Public Domain will be disposed for
Private Ownership. A “Positive Act” declaring the land as alienable and disposable is required.

The burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of State Ownership of the lands of the Public Domain is on the
person applying for registration who must prove that the land subject of the application is alienable and disposable.
He/she must establish the existence of a positive act coming from the Government.

In this case, the respondent-claimants were not able to present a positive act of the Government; matters of land
classification or reclassification cannot be assumed, they call for proof.
Respondent-claimants raised two (2) old cases of Ankron v. Gov’t of the Philippine Islands (1919) and De Aldecoa
v. Insular Government (1909)
The Respondent-Claimants reliance with the 2 cases is misplaced, for these cases do not have the effect of
converting portion/whole of Boracay into Agricultural; “The cases were decided at a time when the President have
no powers to classify lands of the Public Domain into Mineral/Timber/Agricultural.”

If we expand the presumption in Akron and De Aldecoa cases, all lands of public domain will be reclassified into
alienable lands and this will be against the Regalian Doctrine.

The cases of Ankron and De Aldecoa is about land registration cases brought under Act 926; cases dealing with
Judicial and Administrative confirmation of Imperfect Title (Act 926 is the Homestead Act that merely confirms lands
by Judicial or Administrative confirmation [1903] superseded by Act 2874 giving the President exclusive prerogative
to classify or reclassify Public lands for those who failed to avail themselves of the benefits of Act 926)

As to this case the respondent-claimants’ lands in Boracay remain to be unclassified land, and by the virtue of the
Regalian Doctrine such unclassified lands belongs to the State. Land classification must depend on proof.

Continued possession does not create a presumption that the land is alienable – under Act 926 possession of 10
years converts the land into alienable land or private ownership and may apply for Title in their name – It was also
rejected for.

PD 705 a previous issuance of President Marcos in May 19, 1975 categorized all unclassified land into Forest Land
– including Boracay - with respect to prior titles that existed prior to its effectivity

Even though boracays’ forest cover are already gone, it will still remain to be a Forest Land “A classification for legal
purposes” it doesn’t automatically be converted to agricultural or alienable land.

The Proclamation 1801 of Marcos didn’t convert Boracay into Agricultural – It classified Boracay as Tourist Zone –
there is no express provision therein stated declaring it agricultural – It is NOT the Positive Act needed to classify
Boracay into an Alienable land – It does not address the issue of Alienability – It is Proclamation 1064 of Arroyo who
positively declared part of Boracay alienable which is a mere exercise of her prerogatives as President

It doesn’t violate the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law for Barring the conversion of Public Forest into
Agricultural Land. Boracay cannot be the subject of CARL coverage. Land remaining to be unclassified will not be
released and rendered open for disposition. Moreover, CARL only pertains to Reclassification, and in this case of
Boracay there was no reclassification for it had never been classified previously. Boracay was not yet determined
where on the island is a forest and Forest reserves – so there is no reclassification to speak of.

The two requisite for Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect tile is first Open, Continuous, exclusive, notorious
possession and second, a positive act classifying it to be alienable

The court ruled that 1801 of Marcos is not the positive act needed. Possession of the land no matter how long
cannot confer ownership of possessory right. Furthermore, claimants failed to prove possession of open,
continuous, exclusive, notorious possession on their lands in Boracay since June 12, 1945

Tax Declaration is insufficient to prove possession, because the claimants earliest presented tax declaration was
issued only in 1993.

Continued possession and considerable investments of the private claimants do not give them a vested right in
Boracay because courts is bound to decide cases based on evidence presented and laws applicable.

In issuing Proclamation 1064 the Government taken the step necessary to open up the Island into Private ownership

In the First case the Court Ruled that the petition for certiorari by the OSG is granted and the decision of the CA is
Reversed and set aside.

In the second case the court ruled that the petition for Certiorari is dismissed for lack of merit.