Case Digest: Secretary of the DENR v.

 Yap
Posted on May 23, 2016

SECRETARY OF THE DENR vs. YAP

G.R. No. 173775, 8 October 2008

Facts

The Court of Appeals affirmed RTC Kalibo’s decision to grant the petition for declaratory relief
filed by Boracay Mayor Jose Yap et al. to have a judicial confirmation of imperfect title
or survey of land for titling purposes for the land they have been occupying in Boracay. Yap et al
alleged that Proclamation No. 1801 and PTA Circular No. 3-82 raised doubts on their right to
secure titles over their occupied lands. They declared that they themselves, or through their
predecessors-in-interest, had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and
occupation in Boracay since June 12, 1945, or earlier since time immemorial. They declared
their lands for tax purposes and paid realty taxes on them. Later in 2006, President Arroyo issued
Proclamation No. 1064 classifying Boracay Island into 400 hectares of reserved forest land and
628.96 hectares of agricultural land (alienable and disposable).

Issue

Whether Proclamation No. 1801 and PTA Circular No. 3-82 pose any legal obstacle for
respondents, and all those similarly situated, to acquire title to their occupied lands in Boracay
Island.

Ruling

          The SC ruled against Yap et al. and Sacay et al.

Yes, because the Philippine Bill of 1902, Act No. 926, and Proclamation No. 1801 did not
convert portions of Boracay Island into an agricultural land.  The island remained an
unclassified land of the public domain and, applying the Regalian doctrine, is considered State
property. 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 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.

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.   Where the land is not alienable and disposable, possession of the
land, no matter how long, cannot confer ownership or possessory rights.

It is plain error for petitioners to argue that under the Philippine Bill of 1902
and Public Land Act No. 926, mere possession by private individuals of lands creates the legal
presumption that the lands are alienable and disposable.

Except for lands already covered by existing titles, Boracay was an unclassified land of the
public domain prior to Proclamation No. 1064.  Such unclassified lands are considered public
forest under PD No. 705.

The private claimants cannot 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.