10. Isabelo Montano vs. The Insular Gov.

(1909) Public lands and Public domain are equivalent

FACTS:
Petitioner Montano filed in the Court of Land
Registration for the registration of his land
in Libis, Caloocan which was used as a
fishery. Such registration was applied under
Sec. 54 (6) of Act 926 which covers the
confirmation of "agricultural public lands"
subject to private appropriation.
The petition was opposed by two entities. The
first was by Obras Pias de la Sagrada Mitra
who contended that he was the absolute owner
of all dry land on the eastern boundary of
the fishery. The second was by the Solicitor-
General on behalf of the Director of Lands.
The SG contended that the land in question
belonged to the uS Government, who has
authority over lands under the Insular
Government of the Philippines.
The registration court ruled in favor of
Montano and dismissed the two oppositions,
citing Mapa vs. Insular where lands used for
fisheries could be registered as private
property on the strength of ten years'
occupation, under paragraph 6 of section 54
of Act No. 926 of the Phil. Commission
The SG appealed the decision, contending
whether the definition of "agricultural
public lands" as used in Act No. 926 includes
all government property not forest or mineral
in character.
which includes all lands of the government
which are subject to private appropraiation.
Government lands include all lands part of
the Public Lands, and all other lands for
public use.
"Public lands" is held to be equivalent to
"public domain," and dos not by any means
include all lands of Government ownership,
but only so much of said lands as are thrown
open to private appropriation and settlement
by homestead and other like general laws.
Accordingly, "government land" and "public
domain" are not synonymous items; the first
includes not only the second, but also other
lands of the Government already reserved or
devoted to public use or subject to private
right. In other words, the Government owns
real estate which is part of the "public
lands" and other real estate which is not
part thereof."
2) The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of
the registration court, citing the Spanish
Law of Waters which allowed private ownership
to swams and marshes and other ponds not
directly connected to the sea. This was valid
in furtherance of the Treaty of Paris in
order to avoid conflict with vested
interests.

He explained that such definition would put

into question the validity of Act No. 1039
which dedicates to use to the US Navy certain
ground and buildings in Cavite, and Act No.
1654, a fore-shore law regulating the control
and disposal of filled Government lands.

This is because under US laws, the lands

under the ebb and flow of the tide of
navigable waters are not in America
understood to be included in the phrase
"public lands" in Acts of Congress of United
States. Hence, such lands cannot be the
subject of private ownership.

Therefore, in the absence of specific US

Congressional legislation, it is impossible
for individuals to acquire title under the
ten years provision of Act No. 926 or unless
in conformity with the preexisting local law
of the Archipelago.

Issues:
1) Whether the term "agricultural public
land" includes all government property not
forest or mineral in character?
2) Whether the land used as fishery is
included in the term "agricultural public
lands"
Held:

1) The Supreme Court defined the difference

between Public Lands and Government Lands, as
cited in Mapa vs. Insular Government.