DENR vs.
Yap (2008) Held:
Facts:
This petition is for a review on certiorari of the decision
of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming that of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Kalibo Aklan, which granted
the petition for declaratory relief filed by respondents-
claimants Mayor Jose Yap et al, and ordered the survey
of Boracay for titling purposes.
On Nov. 10, 1978, President Marcos issued
Proclamation No. 1801 declaring Boracay Island as a
tourist zone and marine reserve. Claiming that Proc. No.
1801 precluded them from filing an application for a
judicial confirmation of imperfect title or survey of land
for titling purposes, respondents-claimants filed a
petition for declaratory relief with the RTC in Kalibo,
Aklan.
The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) opposed the petition countering that Boracay
Island was an unclassified land of the public domain. It
formed part of the mass of lands classified as “public
forest,” which was not available for disposition
pursuant to section 3(a) of PD No. 705 or the Revised
Forestry Code.
On May 22, 2006, during the pendency the petition in
the trial court, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
issued Proclamation No. 1064 classifying Boracay Island
partly reserved forest land (protection purposes) and
partly agricultural land (alienable and disposable). On
August 10, 2006, petitioners-claimants Sacay,and other
landowners in Boracay filed with this Court an original
petition for prohibition, mandamus, and nullification of
Proclamation No. 1064. They allege that the
Proclamation infringed on their “prior vested rights”
over portions of Boracay. They have been in continued
possession of their respective lots in Boracay since time
immemorial.
Issue: Whether or not the unclassified lands of the
public domain are automatically deemed agricultural
land, therefore making these lands alienable?
No. 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, investigative reports of the
Bureau of Lands investigators, and a legislative act or
statute. A positive act declaring land as alienable and
disposable is required. In keeping with the presumption
of state ownership, the Court has time and again
emphasized that there must be a positive act of the
government, such as an official proclamation,
declassifying inalienable public land into disposable land
for agricultural or other purposes.
Private claimants’ bid for judicial confirmation of
imperfect title, relying on the Philippine Bill of 1902, Act
No. 926, and Proclamation No. 1801, must fail because
of the absence of the second element of alienable and
disposable land. Their entitlement to a government
grant under our present Public Land Act presupposes
that the land possessed and applied for is already
alienable and disposable. This is clear from the wording
of the law itself. Where the land is not alienable and
disposable, possession of the land, no matter how long,
cannot confer ownership or possessory rights. Neither
may private claimants apply for judicial confirmation of
imperfect title under Proclamation No. 1064, with
respect to those lands which were classified as
agricultural lands. Private claimants failed to prove the
first element of open, continuous, exclusive, and
notorious possession of their lands in Boracay since
June 12, 1945.
The Regalian Doctrine dictates that all lands of the
public domain belong to the State, that the State is the
source of any asserted right to ownership of land and
charged with the conservation of such patrimony. All
lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within
private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.
Thus, all lands that have not been acquired from the
government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to
the State as part of the inalienable public domain.
All is not lost, however, for private claimants. While apply thereto. (Republic vs. Herbieto, 459 SCRA 183
they may not be eligible to apply for judicial [2005])
confirmation of imperfect title under Section 48(b) of
CA No. 141, as amended, this does not denote their
automatic ouster from the residential, commercial, and
other areas they possess now classified as agricultural.
Neither will this mean the loss of their substantial
investments on their occupied alienable lands. Lack of
title does not necessarily mean lack of right to possess.

For one thing, those with lawful possession may claim

good faith as builders of improvements. They can take
steps to preserve or protect their possession. For
another, they may look into other modes of applying for
original registration of title, such as by homestead or
sales patent, subject to the conditions imposed by law.
More realistically, Congress may enact a law to entitle
private claimants to acquire title to their occupied lots
or to exempt them from certain requirements under
the present land laws. There is one such bill now
pending in the House of Representatives.

Since 1919, courts were no longer free to determine the

classification of lands from the facts of each case,
except those that have already became private lands.
Act No. 2874, promulgated in 1919 and reproduced in
Section 6 of CA No. 141, gave the Executive
Department, through the President, the exclusive
prerogative to classify or reclassify public lands into
alienable or disposable, mineral or forest.

Since then, courts no longer had the authority, whether

express or implied, to determine the classification of
lands of the public domain.

Notes.—Reversion is an action where the ultimate relief

sought is to revert the land back to the government
under the Regalian doctrine. (Caro vs. Sucaldito, 458
SCRA 595 [2005])

Any period of possession prior to the date when public

lands were classified as alienable and disposable is
inconsequential and should be excluded from the
computation of the period of possession—such
possession can never ripen into ownership and unless
the land had been classified as alienable and disposable,
the rules on confirmation of imperfect title shall not