KEY POINTS:

priv. ownership

PD. No. 705 was enacted and Sec. 3(a) thereof essentially stated that lands of the public domain which have not
been the subject of the present system of classification are considered as forest land. Mineral and Timber or
forest lands are not subject to private ownership unless they are first reclassified as agricultural lands and so
released for alienation. In the absence of such classification, the land remains as unclassified land until released
therefrom and rendered open to disposition. Courts have no authority to do so.

This is in consonance with the Regalian Doctrine that all lands of the public domain belong to the State, and
that the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership in land and charged with the conservation of
such patrimony. Under the Regalian Doctrine, all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private
ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Hence, a positive act of the government is needed to
declassify a forest land into alienable or disposable land for agricultural or other purposes.

The burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of state ownership of the lands of the public domain is on
the person applying for registration that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable

mangroove swamps

PD 707 Swamplands and Mangrove Forests. – Strips of mangrove forest bordering numerous islands which
protect the shoreline, the shoreline roads, and even coastal communities from the destructive force of the sea
during high winds and typhoons, shall be maintained and shall not be alienated.

subj to ownership

In the Amunategui case, the classification of mangrove swamps as forest lands is descriptive of its legal nature
or status and does not have to be descriptive of what the land actually looks like. It could therefore not be the
subject of the adverse possession and consequent ownership claimed by the private respondent in support of
his application for registration. To be so, it had first to be released as forest land and reclassified as agricultural
land pursuant to the certification the Director of Forestry may issue under Section 1827 of the Revised
Administrative Code.

national parks

Moreover, it is well-settled that a certificate of title is void, when it covers property of public domain classified
as forest or timber and mineral lands. Any title issued on non-disposable lots even in the hands of an alleged
innocent purchaser for value, shall be cancelled. The title issued for land within a national park would likely be
considered invalid or void. National parks are typically established to preserve natural resources and
biodiversity, and allowing private ownership within them would contradict this purpose. It is already a settled
rule that forest lands or forest reserves are not capable of private appropriation, and possession thereof,
however long, can not convert them into private property|..

RAFRA 11038 Expanded National Integrated Protected Areas System (ENIPAS)

Person exploit forestry under PD705
SECTION 20. License Agreement, License, Lease or Permit. – No person may utilize, exploit, occupy, possess or conduct
any activity within any forest and grazing land, or establish, install, add and operate any wood or forest products
processing plant, unless he had been authorized to do under a license agreement, license, lease or permit.

license agreement LICENSE

How long is license agreement?

SECTION 27. Duration of License Agreement or License to Harvest Timber in Forest Lands. – The duration of the
privilege to harvest timber in any particular forest land under a license agreement or license shall be fixed and
determined in accordance with the annual allowable cut therein, the established cutting cycle thereof, the yield
capacity of harvestable timber, and the capacity of healthy residuals for a second growth.

prohibited acts under PD705? Its elements of crime

PD 705 (1975): "SEC. 68. Cutting, gathering and/or collecting timber or other products without license. — Any
person who shall cut, gather, collect or remove timber or other forest products from any forest land, or timber
from alienable and disposable public lands, or from private lands, without any authority under a license
agreement, lease, license or permit, shall be guilty of qualified theft as defined and punished under Articles
309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code . . ."

Section 7 of RA 7161 (1991) repealed what was then Section 77 of PD 705, as amended and renumbered
Section 68 of PD 705 to Section 77 thereof and replaced the repealed Section 77. Note that the repealed
Section 77 was a carry-over from Section 297 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977, as amended which
was then incorporated into PD 705 as Section 77 by EO 273 (1987) and RA 7161. This repealed Section 77,
formerly Section 297 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977, read:

Illegal cutting and removal of forest products. — [a] Any person who unlawfully cuts or gathers forest products
in any forest lands without license or if under license, in violation of the terms hereof, shall, upon conviction for
each act or omission, be fined for not less than ten thousand pesos but not more than one hundred thousand
pesos or imprisoned for a term of not less than four years and one day but not more than six years, or both.

People v. CFI of Quezon (Branch VII) held that the elements of this offense are:
1) the accused cut, gathered, collected or removed timber or other forest products
2) ; 2) the timber or other forest products cut, gathered, collected or removed belongs to the government or
to any private individual; and
3) 3) the cutting, gathering, collecting or removing was without any authority granted by the State.

the Court also ruled that - Ownership is not an essential element of the offense as defined in Section [68] of
P.D. No. 705, it was sufficient that it alleged that the taking was without any authority or license from the
government.

We include one more element: the timber or other forest product must have been cut, gathered, collected, or
removed from any forest land, or timber, from alienable or disposable public land or from private land.
This is based on the language of the offense as defined in either Section 68 or Section 77 which expressly
requires the source of the timber or other forest products to be from these types of land.