Chunky Monkeys CM Digest

Case Name: DENR v. Yap

Docket: G.R. No. 167707 & 173775
Date: October 8, 2008
Ponente: Reyes, R. T., J.

FACTS
First Case:
 DENR approved the National Reservation Survey of Boracay Island, which identified
several lots as being occupied or claimed by named persons. In 1978, Pres. Marcos
issued Proclamation 1801, declaring Boracay Island, among other islands, caves, and
peninsula in the Philippines, as tourist zones and marine reserves.
 Respondent-claimants claimed that Proclamation 1801 precluded them from filing an
application for judicial confirmation of imperfect title or survey of land for titling
purposes. They thus filed a petition for declaratory relief with the RTC. The OSG
opposed their petition, arguing that Boracay Island was an unclassified land of the
public domain, that it formed part of the mass of lands classified as pubic forest,
which is not available for disposition pursuant to the Revised Forestry Code. RTC ruled
in favor of respondent-claimants which was upheld by the CA.
Second Case:
 During the pendency of the previous case, PGMA issued Proclamation no 1064
classifying Boracay Island into 400 has. of reserved forest land and 628.96 has. of
agricultural land (alienable and disposable). Petitioner-claimants (of second case)
filed a case in the SC for prohibition, mandamus, and nullification of Proclamation No.
1064 for infringing their prior vested rights over portions of Boracay. OSG opposed
claiming that petitioner-claimants do not have a vested right over the occupied portions
in the island because Boracay is an unclassified public forest land pursuant to PD 705.
Being public forest, the claimed portions are inalienable.

ISSUE and HELD

1. W/N private claimants have a right to secure title over their occupied portions in
Boracay. No
 Lands of public domain are classified into agricultural. Boracay had never been
expressly and administratively classified as such. Boracay was an unclassified land of
the public domain, and under the Regalian Doctrine, belongs to the State. A positive act
declaring Boracay as alienable and disposable is required. There was no such
proclamation, executive order, administrative action, report, statute, or certification
presented to prove alienability of the subject land.
 The cited cases of Ankron and De Aldecoa did not have the effect of converting the
whole Boracay or portions of it into agricultural land. They were decided at a time when
the President had no power to classify lands of public domain. The courts were free to
make corresponding classifications in justiciable cases, or were vested with implicit
power to do so. If we apply the theory of private claimants, Philippine Bill of 1902 and
Act No. 926 would have made all lands in the Philippines, except those already
classified as timber or mineral lands, alienable and disposable.
 PD No. 705 categorized all unclassified lands of public domain as public forest, defined
as a mass of lands of the public domain which has not been the subject of the present

Balbanero, Bruzon, Go, Olazo, Ong, Santos, Sarmiento, Umandap, Yrreverre

Chunky Monkeys CM Digest

system of classification for the determination of which lands are needed for forest
purpose and which are not. All unclassified lands, including Boracay, are ipso facto
considered public forests. PD 705, however, respects titles already existing prior to its
effectivity. Forests, in the context of both the Public Land Act and the Constitution
classifying lands of the public domain do not necessarily refer to large tracts of wooded
land or expanses covered by dense growth of trees and underbrushes.
 Proclamation 1801 did not convert Boracay into agricultural land. It is Proclamation
1064 which declared parts of it as such. It is within the President’s power to make such
declaration.
 Proc. 1064 does not violate the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. The prohibition in
the CARL applies only to a reclassification of land. If the land had never been previously
classified, as in the case of Boracay, there can be no prohibited reclassification under
the agrarian law.
 With respect to those lands which were classified as agricultural lands, private
claimants failed to prove the element of possession since June 12, 1945 to be eligible
for judicial confirmation of imperfect title.

*One last note:

 Despite the investments made by the claimants, the SC is bound to apply the law
strictly and judiciously. Ito ang batas at ito ang dapat umiral.
 Remedies:
o Claim good faith as builders of improvements.
o Take steps to preserve or protect their possession.
o Look into other modes of applying for original registration of title, such as
homestead or sales patent.
o Congress may enact a law to entitle them to acquire title. There is one such
Bill now pending in the HoR. (noon to so idk if it was passed)

Balbanero, Bruzon, Go, Olazo, Ong, Santos, Sarmiento, Umandap, Yrreverre