Some cases for NatRes

Chavez vs. Public Estates Authority

"SS4ES:

FACTS: CTS: The The Publ Public ic Esta Estate tes s Auth Author orit ity y (PEA (PEA)) is the the cent centra rall impleme implementin nting g agency agency tasked tasked to undertak undertake e reclama reclamation tion project projects s nationi nationide! de! "t took o#er the leasing and selling selling $unctions $unctions o$ the %E&' (%epartment o$ En#ironmental and &atural 'esources) inso$ar as recla eclaim imed ed or abou aboutt to be recla eclaim imed ed $or $oresho eshore re land lands s are are concerned!

0! 5hether 5hether or not an alien alien under under our Constitutio Constitution n may ac8uire ac8uire residential land

PEA sought the trans$er to the Amari Coastal ay and %e#elopment Corp Corpora oratio tion n a pri#a pri#ate te corpo corpora ratio tion n o$ the oner onershi ship p o$ **!+, **!+, hectares o$ the Freedom "slands! PEA also sought to ha#e -./!012 hectares o$ submerged areas o$ 3anila ay to Amari!

'47"&B:

"SS4E: 5hether or not the trans$er is #alid! 6E7%: 6E7%: &o! To To allo allo #ast areas o$ reclaim reclaimed ed lands o$ the public domain to be trans$erred to Amari as pri#ate lands ill sanction a gross #iolation o$ the constitutional ban on pri#ate corporations $rom ac8uiring any kind o$ alienable land o$ the public domain!  The Supreme Court a9rmed that the 01*!, hectares o$ reclaimed reclaimed lands comprising the Freedom "slands no co#ered by certi;cates o$ title in the name o$ PEA are alienable lands o$ the public domain!  The 1.-!01 hectares hectares o$ submerged submerged areas o$ 3anila ay remain inalienable natural resources o$ the public domain! The trans$er (as embod embodie ied d in a joint joint #entur #enture e agre agreeme ement) nt) to A3A'" A3A'" a pri#a pri#ate te corporation corporation onership o$ **!+, hectares o$ the Freedom "slands is #oid #oid $or $or bein being g cont contra rary ry to Sect Sectio ion n + Arti Articl cle e &o! +*//0 hich a9rmed an earlier decision- o$ the 'egional Trial Court at "ba Qambales ranch 2. in 7and 'egistration Case &o! &G-1G0!  The decision under re#ie recites the $actual backdrop as $ollos:  This is an application $or registration o$ title to $our (,) parcels o$  land located in Panan otolan Qambales more particularly described in the amended application ;led by Celestina &aguiat on -. %ecember 0.. ith the 'egional Trial Court o$ Qambales ranch 2.! Applicant Rherein respondent alleges inter alia that she is the oner o$ the said parcels o$ land ha#ing ac8uired them by purchase $rom the 7"% Corporation hich likeise ac8uired the same $rom %emetria Calderon =ose;na 3oraga and Fausto 3onje and their predecessorsGinGinterest ho ha#e been in possession thereo$  $or more than thirty (+/) years and that to the best o$ her knoledge said lots suer no mortgage or encumbrance o$  hate#er kind nor is there any person ha#ing any interest legal or e8uitable or in possession thereo$! n -. =une 0../ the 'epublic o$ the Philippines Rherein petitioner! ! ! ;led an opposition to the application on the ground that neither the applicant nor her predecessorsGin interest ha#e been in open continuous e?clusi#e and notorious possession and occupation o$ the lands in 8uestion since 0- =une 0.,1 or prior thereto that the muniments o$ title and ta? payment receipts o$  applicant do not constitute competent and su9cient e#idence o$ a bonaG;de ac8uisition o$ the lands applied $or or o$ his open continuous e?clusi#e and notorious possession and occupation thereo$ in the concept o$ (an) oner that the applicantLs claim o$  onership in $ee simple on the basis o$ Spanish title or grant can no longer be a#ailed o$ ! ! ! and that the parcels o$ land applied $or are part o$ the public domain belonging to the 'epublic o$ the Philippines not subject to pri#ate appropriation! n 01 ctober 0../ the loer court issued an order o$ general de$ault as against the hole orld ith the e?ception o$ the 9ce

"n a decision, dated September +/ 0..0 the trial court rendered  judgment $or herein respondent Celestina &aguiat adjudicating unto her the parcels o$ land in 8uestion and decreeing the registration thereo$ in her name thus: 56E'EF'E premises considered this Court hereby adjudicates the parcels o$ land situated in Panan otolan Qambales appearing on Plan APG/+G//+,,* containing an area o$ +0+0 s8uare meters appearing on Plan APG/+G//+,,2 containing an area o$ 01+-containing an area o$ 01+* s8uare meters to herein applicant Celestina T! &aguiat o$ legal age Filipino citiDen married to 'ommel &aguiat and a resident o$ Angeles City Pampanga together ith all the impro#ements e?isting thereon and orders and decrees registration in her name in accordance ith Act &o! ,.2 Commonealth Act &o! 0, Rshould be 0,0 as amended and Presidential %ecree &o! 01-.! This adjudication hoe#er is subject to the #arious easementsUreser#ations pro#ided $or under pertinent las presidential decrees andUor presidential letters o$ instructions hich should be annotatedU projected on the title to be issued! And once this decision becomes ;nal let the corresponding decree o$  registration be immediately issued! (5ords in bracket added) 5ith its motion $or reconsideration ha#ing been denied by the trial court petitioner 'epublic ent on appeal to the CA in CAGB!'! C> &o! +*//0! As stated at the outset hereo$ the CA in the herein assailed decision o$ 3ay -. 0.. a9rmed that o$ the trial court to it: 56E'EF'E premises considered the decision appealed $rom is hereby AFF"'3E%! S '%E'E%! 6ence the 'epublicLs present recourse on its basic submission that

the e#idence since respondent has not established ith the re8uired e#idence her title in $ee simple or imper$ect title in respect o$ the subject lots hich ould arrant their registration under I (P!%! 01-. or Public 7and Act (C!A!) 0,0! "n particular petitioner 'epublic $aults the appellate court on its ;nding respecting the length o$ respondentLs occupation o$ the property subject o$ her application $or registration and $or not considering the $act that she has not established that the lands in 8uestion ha#e been declassi;ed $rom $orest or timber Done to alienable and disposable property!

the prerogati#e o$ classi$ying or reclassi$ying lands o$ the public domain i!e! $rom $orest or mineral to agricultural and #ice #ersa belongs to the E?ecuti#e ranch o$ the go#ernment and not the court!0, &eedless to stress the onus to o#erturn by incontro#ertible e#idence the presumption that the land subject o$  an application $or registration is alienable or disposable rests ith the applicant!01

Public $orest lands or $orest reser#es unless declassi;ed and released by positi#e act o$ the Bo#ernment so that they may $orm part o$ the disposable agricultural lands o$ the public domain are not capable o$ pri#ate appropriation!1 As to these assets the rules on con;rmation o$ imper$ect title do not apply!2 Bi#en this postulate the principal issue to be addressed turns on the 8uestion o$ hether or not the areas in 8uestion ha#e ceased to ha#e the status o$ $orest or other inalienable lands o$ the public domain!

 The theory o$ Rpetitioner that the properties in 8uestion are lands o$  the public domain cannot be sustained as it is directly against the abo#e doctrine! Said doctrine is a rea9rmation o$ the principle established in the earlier cases ! ! ! that open e?clusi#e and undisputed possession o$ alienable public land $or period prescribed by la creates the legal ;ction hereby the land upon completion o$ the re8uisite period ipso jure and ithout the need o$ judicial or other sanction ceases to be public land and becomes pri#ate property I! (5ord in bracket and underscoring added!)

Forests in the conte?t o$ both the Public 7and Act* and the Constitution classi$ying lands o$ the public domain into agricultural $orest or timber mineral lands and national parks do not necessarily re$er to a large tract o$ ooded land or an e?panse co#ered by dense groth o$ trees and underbrush! As e stated in 6eirs o$ Amunategui .G A $orested area classi;ed as $orest land o$ the public domain does not lose such classi;cation simply because loggers or settlers ha#e stripped it o$ its $orest co#er! Parcels o$ land classi;ed as $orest land may actually be co#ered ith grass or planted to crops by kaingin culti#ators or other $armers! Forest lands do not ha#e to be on mountains or in out o$ the ay places! ???! The classi;cation is merely descripti#e o$ its legal nature or status and does not ha#e to be descripti#e o$ hat the land actually looks like! ??? 4nder Section - Article &o! +*//0 is 'E>E'SE% and SET AS"%E! Accordingly respondentLs application $or original registration o$ title in 7and 'egistration Case &o! &G-1G0 o$ the 'egional Trial Court at "ba Qambales ranch 2. is %E&"E%! &o costs!