Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
Atty. Rowel Ilagan
#
TITLE
CTN
FACTS
ISSUE
DOCTRINE
RATIO
I. NATURE OF REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS AND JURISDICTION OF COURTS
Concept Of The Regalian Doctrine
CRUZ VS. G.R. No. Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Do
the Regalian Doctrine; Natural Resources; Public Lands; No, the provisions of IPRA do
1
The Regalian Doctrine or jura regalia is a Western
SECRETAR
Y OF DENR
135385.
December
6, 2000.
PER
CURIAM
provisions of
IPRA
contravene the
Constitution?
Anouevo-Ongkeko
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
Anouevo-Ongkeko
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
Anouevo-Ongkeko
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
SECRETAR
Y OF DENR
VS. YAP
G.R. No.
173775.
October 8,
2008
REYES,
R.T., J.
The
main
issue
is
whether
private
claimants have
a right to
secure
titles
over
their
occupied
portions
in
Boracay.
Anouevo-Ongkeko
petitions DENIED.
decision is reversed.
The
CA
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
No. 1801 and its implementing
Circular did not place Boracay beyond
the commerce of man. Since the Island
was classified as a tourist zone, it was
susceptible of private ownership.
Under Section 48(b) of the Public Land
Act, they had the right to have the lots
registered in their names through
judicial confirmation of imperfect
titles.
The Republic, through the OSG,
opposed the petition for declaratory
relief.
The OSG countered 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 the Revised Forestry
Code, as amended. The OSG
maintained that respondents-claimants
reliance on PD No. 1801 and PTA
Circular No. 3-82 was misplaced.
Their right to judicial confirmation of
title was governed by Public Land Act
and Revised Forestry Code, as
amended. Since Boracay Island had
not been classified as alienable and
disposable, whatever possession they
had cannot ripen into ownership.
On July 14, 1999, the RTC rendered a
decision in favor of respondentsclaimants, declaring that, PD 1810
and PTA Circular No. 3-82 Revised
Forestry Code, as amended.
The OSG moved for reconsideration
but its motion was denied. The
Republic then appealed to the CA. On
In 2004, the appellate court affirmed in
toto the RTC decision. Again, the OSG
sought reconsideration but it was
Anouevo-Ongkeko
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
similarly denied. Hence, the present
petition under Rule 45.
Anouevo-Ongkeko
disposable.
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
lands is the
the Executive
Office of the
authority to do
L-35744.
Septembe
r
28,
1984.
MELENC
IO-HERR
ERA, J.
Anouevo-Ongkeko
or
not
respondents
acts
were
appropriate
Whether
or
not there was
a
perfected
contract
of
sale between
the parties
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
ARCEO VS.
CA
G.R. No.
81401.
May 18,
1990
SARMIE
NTO, J
Anouevo-Ongkeko
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
inter vivos, marked in which the
spouses bestowed the properties in
favor of Jose. Since 1942, Jose had
been paying taxes thereon. In 1949, he
took personal possession thereof,
worked thereon, and claimed them as
owner thereof.
L-81163.
Septembe
r 26, 1988
GUTIER
Anouevo-Ongkeko
10
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
REZ, JR.,
J.
Anouevo-Ongkeko
11
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
Anouevo-Ongkeko
12
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
ALMIROL
VS.
REGISTER
OF DEEDS
No.
L-22486.
March 20,
1968.
CASTRO,
J
Anouevo-Ongkeko
13
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
corresponding TCT.
L630. Nove
mber 15,
1947
MORAN,
C. J.
Anouevo-Ongkeko
The
1935
COMMONWEALTH
CONSTITUTION served as the
main point of reference in this
case; the following facts
however, should be noted:
The 1943 Constitution was
already in place at the time this
case was penned in 1947
Krivenko bought the property in
December 1941
The
dispute
about
the
registration and the denial of
such by the register of deeds
occurred in May 1945.
Section 1, Article XIII of the
1935
Constitution
was
reproduced verbatim in Section
1, Article VIII of the 1943
Constitution
1935 Constitution: Article
XIII, Section 5. Save in cases of
hereditary
succession,
no
private agricultural land shall be
14
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
Department of Justice was released,
instructing all registers of deeds to
accept for registration all transfers of
residential lots to aliens. With the
effect of the circular swaying in his
favor, Krivenko thereafter filed a
motion to withdraw his appeal.
However, the Supreme Court deemed it
best to exercise its discretionary
powers and denied Krivenkos appeal,
in order to tackle the more pressing
constitutional issue; and in the process,
established itself as a landmark case
with regard to foreign ownership of
lands in the Philippines
Anouevo-Ongkeko
15
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
Anouevo-Ongkeko
16
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
HALILI VS.
CA
G.R. No.
113539.
March 12,
1998.
PANGAN
IBAN, J
Anouevo-Ongkeko
Were
the
petitioners
entitled to a
right
of
redemption?
Was the sale
of the lot to
defendantappellee
Cataniag
valid?
17
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
Anouevo-Ongkeko
VS.
CO
LIONG
CHONG
18
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
L-8451.
December
20, 1957
FLIX, J.
Anouevo-Ongkeko
19
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
Anouevo-Ongkeko
20
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
21,
1955
XIII, OF THE
CONSTITUTION.The
provisions of Act No. 271
of the old Philippine
Commission which allow
all religious associations,
of whatever sort or
denomination, whether
incorporated in the
Philippines or in the
name of other country, to
hold land in the
Philippines for religious
purposes, must be
deemed repealed by the
absolute terms of section
5, Article XIII, of the
Constitution, which limit
the acquisition of land in
the Philippines to its
REY
ES J.
B. L.,
J.
Anouevo-Ongkeko
21
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
citizens, or to
corporations or
associations at least sixty
per centum of the capital
stock of which is owned
by such citizens, adopted
after the enactment of
said Act No. 271.
DEED OF DONATION
EXECUTED BY A
FILIPINO CITIZEN IN
FAVOR OF A FOREIGN
RELIGIOUS
ORGANIZATION CAN
NOT BE
REGISTERED.In view
of the provisions of
sections 1 and 5 of Article
XIII of the Constitution
and the decision of the
Supreme Court in the
case of Krivenko vs. The
Register of Deeds of
Manila, 44 Off. Gaz.,
1211, a deed of donation
of a parcel of land
executed by a Filipino
Anouevo-Ongkeko
22
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
citizen in favor of a
religious organization
whose founder, trustees
and administrator are
non-Filipinos, can not be
admitted for registration.
REFUSAL OF
REGISTER OF DEEDS
TO REGISTER DEED
OF DONATION IS NOT
VlOLATIVE OF
FREEDOM OF
RELIGION CLAUSE.
The refusal of the
Register of Deeds to
register said deed of
donation is not violative
of the freedom of religion
clause of the Constitution
(section 1 [7], Article III),
since land tenure is by no
means indispensable to
the free exercise and
enjoyment of religious
profession or worship; or
that one may not worship
the Deity according to the
Anouevo-Ongkeko
23
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
L-31956.
April 30,
1984
PLANA,
J.
not a contract
of sale can be
annulled
on
the basis that
it
is
in
violation
of
the
1935
Constitution
prohibiting the
sale of land to
aliens
independently of the
doctrine of pari delicto, the
petitioner cannot have the sale
annulled. While the vendee was
an alien at the time of sale, the
land has since become the
property, of respondent Joaquin
Teng, a naturalized Philippine
citizen, who is constitutionally
qualified to own a land.
13
REPUBLIC
VS.
IAC
AND
GONZALES
G.R No.
74170.
July 18,
Anouevo-Ongkeko
24
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
1989.
NARVAS
A, J
Anouevo-Ongkeko
25
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
L-1411.
Septembe
r
29,
1953]
BAUTIST
A
ANGELO
, J.
Anouevo-Ongkeko
26
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
15
PHILIPPIN
E
BANKING
CORPORA
TION
VS.
LUI SHE
No.
L-17587.
Septembe
r 12, 1967
CASTRO,
J
Anouevo-Ongkeko
WON
the
lease contract
executed by
Santos is valid
27
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
leased premises should his pending
petition for naturalization be granted;
that on November 18, 1958, after
failing to secure naturalization and
after finding that adoption does not
confer the citizenship of the adopting
parent on the adopted, the parties
entered into two other contracts
extending the lease to 99 years and
fixing the period of the option to buy at
50
years
which
indubitably
demonstrate that each of the contracts
in question was designed to carry out
Justina Santos' expressed wish to give
the land to Wong and thereby in effect
place its ownership in alien hands, that
"as the lease contract was part of a
scheme to violate the Constitution it
suffers from the same infirmity that
renders the other contracts void and
can no more be saved from illegality
than the rest of the contracts." The
present motion is for a new trial and is
based on three documents (1 Codicil
and 2 wills) executed by Justina Santos
which, so it is claimed, constitute
newlydiscovered material evidence:
Codicil- Justina Santos not only named
Tita Yaptinchay LaO the administratrix
of her estate with the right to buy the
properties of the estate, but also
provided that if the said LaO was
legally disqualified from buying she
was to be her sole heir. Wills- Justina
Santos enjoined her heirs to respect the
lease contract made, and the
conditional option given, in favor of
Wong.
Anouevo-Ongkeko
28
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
29
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
Atty. Rowel Ilagan
2. Classification of Public Land
Only Alienable Lands Of The Public Domain May Be The Subject Of Disposition
G.R. No. From the time of Marcos until Estrada, Whether
or Reclamation Projects; Government-Owned Under the Public Land Act (CA
16 CHAVEZ
VS. PUBLIC
ESTATE
AUTHORIT
Y
133250.
May
6,
2003
CARPIO,
J.
Anouevo-Ongkeko
not
the
stipulations in
the Amended
JVA for the
transfer
to
AMARI
of
lands,
reclaimed or
to
be
reclaimed,
violate
the
Constitution
30
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
Anouevo-Ongkeko
31
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
17
BUREAU
OF
FORESTRY
VS. CA AND
GALLO
No.
L-37995.
August
31, 1987
PARAS,
J.
Anouevo-Ongkeko
WON
the
classification
of lands of
public domain
by
the
Executive
Branch of
the
Government
into
agricultural,
32
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
application on the ground that neither
the
applicant nor her predecessors-ininterest have sufficient title over the
lands
applied for, which could be registered
under the Torrens systems, and that
they have never been in open,
continuous and exclusive possession of
the said
lands for at least 30 years.
The Director of Forestry also opposed
on the ground that certain portions of
the lands, with an area of
approximately 19.4 hectares are
mangrove swamps
and are within a Timberland Block.
In 1965, Filomeno Gallo purchased the
subject parcels of land from Mercedes
Diago, and moved to be substituted in
place of the latter, attaching to his
motion an Amended Application for
Registration of Title.
Philippine Fisheries Commission also
moved to substitute petitioner Bureau
of Forestry as oppositor, since
supervision and control of said portion
have
been transferred from the Bureau of
Forestry to the PFC.
In April 1966, the trial court rendered
its decision ordering the registration of
the 4 parcels of land in the name of
Filomeno Gallo. It ruled that although
the
controverted portion of 19.4 hectares
are mangrove and nipa swamps within
a
Timberland Block, petitioners failed to
submit convincing proof that these
lands are more valuable for forestry
than for agricultural purposes, and the
presumption is that these are
agricultural lands.
Anouevo-Ongkeko
forest
or
mineral can be
changed
or
varied
by the court.
NO
33
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
18
DIRECTOR
OF LANDS
VS. CA AND
BISNAR
G.R. No.
83609.
October
26, 1989
GRIO-A
QUINO,
J.
The principal
issue in this
appeal
is
whether the
lots
in
question may
be registered
under Section
48 (b) of CA
141,
as
amended.
NO!
Anouevo-Ongkeko
34
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
* On December 16,1976, the Director
of Lands and the Director of the
Bureau of Forest Development,
opposed the application on the grounds
that:
1. Neither the applicants nor their
predecessors-in-interest
possess
sufficient title to acquire ownership in
fee simple of the land or lots applied
for, the same not having been acquired
by any of the various types of title
issued by the Spanish Government,
such as, (1) 'titulo real' or royal grant,
(2) the 'concession especial' or special
grant, (3) the 'composicion con el
estado titulo' or adjustment title, (4) the
'titulo de compra 'or title by purchase,
and (5) the 'informacion possessoria' or
possessory information under the
Royal Decree of 13 February 1894, or
any other recognized mode of
acquisition of title over realty under
pertinent applicable laws.
Anouevo-Ongkeko
35
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
Anouevo-Ongkeko
36
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
Public Lands And Government Lands Distinguished
19 MONTANO No. 3714. Isabelo Montano presented a petition to Whether
VS. CA
January
26, 1909
TRACEY
,J
Anouevo-Ongkeko
or
not the land in
question can
be acquired by
Montano
37
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
3. Non-Registrable Properties
Property Of Public Domain
L- The
20 MARTINEZ No.
VS. CA
31271. Ap
ril
29,
1974
ESGUER
RA, J.
Court may not adjudge title over nonregisterable land.The Land Registration
Court
has
no
jurisdiction
over
non-registerable properties, such as public
navigable rivers which are parts of the
public domain, and cannot validly adjudge
the registration of title in favor of a private
applicant. Hence, the judgment of the Court
of First Instance of Pampanga as regards the
Lot No. 2 of Certificate of Title No. 15856
in the name of petitioners may be attacked at
any time, either directly or collaterally, by
the State which is not bound by any
prescriptive period provided for by the
Statute of Limitations.
Anouevo-Ongkeko
38
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
Anouevo-Ongkeko
39
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
21
LAUREL
VS.
GARCIA
G.R. No.
92013.
July 25,
1990
GUTIER
REZ, JR.,
J.
Can
the
Roppongi
property and
others of its
kind
be
alienated by
the Philippine
Government?
Does the Chief
Executive, her
officers
and
agents, have
the authority
and
jurisdiction, to
sell
the
Roppongi
property?
Anouevo-Ongkeko
40
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
entities in
projects.
national
development
Anouevo-Ongkeko
41
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
Anouevo-Ongkeko
42
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
22
REPUBLIC
VS.
ALAGAD
G.R. No.
66807.
January
26, 1989
SARMIE
NTO, J.
Anouevo-Ongkeko
43
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
occupying portions of Lot 1. On 8
August 1968, judgment was rendered
in the eviction case ordering the barrio
folk therein to return possession of the
premises to the Alagads. The barrio
folk did not appeal. The Republic filed
a petition for annulment of title and
reversion, insofar as the 1.42 hectare
northwestern portion on end of Lot 1 is
concerned, contending that such is
foreshore land, and that the Alagads
could not have had an imperfect title to
it as it was the barrio folk who filled up
the land to elevate the land to its
present condition. The Court, on 6
October 1970, issued a writ of
preliminary injunction enjoining the
Provincial Sheriff of Laguna or his
deputies from enforcing the writ of
execution issued in Civil Case 52, and
the Alagads from selling, mortgaging,
disposing or otherwise entering into
any transaction affecting the area. The
case was set for pre-trial on 6 July
1971,
to
which
the
attorney
representing the Republic did not
appear. On 16 July 1971, the court
dismissed the complaint. The Republic
filed a motion for reconsideration, was
set for hearing, and finally denied by
the court. Appeal was made to the
Court of Appeals, which sustained the
trial court for failure to show in the
record on appeal that the appeal was
perfected on time. Hence, the appeal.
The Supreme Court reversed the
decision of the lower courts, and
reinstated the Republics complaint and
thus remanded the case to the trial
court for further proceedings.
Forest Lands
Anouevo-Ongkeko
44
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
Atty. Rowel Ilagan
REPUBLIC
No.
Private
respondent,
Isabel
Lastimado,
Whether
or
Republic
Act
931;
Land
inside
military
No,
the petitioner is not
23
VS. CA AND
LASTIMAD
O
L-39473.
April 30,
1979
MELENC
IO-HERR
ERA, J.
Anouevo-Ongkeko
not
the
petitioner was
estopped from
filing a suit
due to the
inaction
and/or neglect
of its officials.
estopped.
The Supreme Court
held that If the allegation of
petitioner that the land in
question was inside the military
reservation at the time it was
claimed is true, then, it cannot be
the object of any cadastral p nor
can it be the object of reopening
under
Republic
Act
No.
931. Similarly, if the land in
question, indeed forms part of
the
public
forest,
then,
possession thereof, however
long, cannot convert it into
private property as it is within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Bureau of Forestry and beyond
the power and jurisdiction of the
Cadastral Court to register under
the Torrens System.
Even
assuming
that
the
government agencies can be
faulted for inaction and neglect
(although the Solicitor General
claims that it received no notice),
yet, the same cannot operate to
bar action by the State as it
cannot be estopped by the
mistake or error of its officials or
agents. Further, one cannot lose
sight
of
the
cardinal
consideration that "the State as
persona in law is the juridical
entity, which is the source of any
asserted right to ownership in
land" under basic Constitutional
Precepts, and that it is moreover
charged with the conservation of
such patrimony.
The case was remanded to the
trial court to allow petitioner to
present evidence in support of its
45
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
Watersheds
VS. No.
24 TAN
DIRECTOR
OF
FORESTRY
L-24548.
October
27, 1983
MAKASI
AR, J.
I. Whether or
not
petitioners
timber license
is valid (No)
II. Whether
or
not
petitioner had
exhausted
administrative
remedies
available (No)
Anouevo-Ongkeko
I
Petitioners timber license was
signed and released without
authority and is therefore void
ab initio. In the first place, in the
general memorandum dated May
30, 1963, the Director of
Forestry was authorized to grant
a new ordinary timber license
only where the area covered
thereby was not more than 3,000
hectares; the tract of public
forest awarded to the petitioner
contained 6,420 hectares In the
second place, at the time it was
released to the petitioner, the
Acting Director of Forestry had
no more authority to grant any
license. (The license was
released to the petitioner
onJanuary 6, 1964 while on the
other hand, the authority of the
Director of Forestry to issue
license
was
revoked
on December 19, 1963). In view
thereof, the Director of Forestry
had no longer any authority to
release the license on January 6,
1964, and said license is
therefore void ab initio. What is
46
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
delegated to the Director of Forestry to
grant ordinary timber licenses. On the
same date, OTL in the name of Tan,
was signed by then Acting Director of
Forestry, without the approval of the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources. On January 6, 1964, the
license was released by the Director of
Forestry .
Ravago Commercial Company
wrote a letter to the Secretary of ANR
praying that the OTL of Tan be
revoked. On March 9, 1964, The
Secretary of ANR declared Tans OTL
null and void (but the same was not
granted to Ravago). Petitionerappellant moved for a reconsideration
of the order, but the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources
denied the motion.
Anouevo-Ongkeko
II
Petitioner did not exhaust
administrative remedy in this
case. He did not appeal the order
of the respondent Secretary of
Agriculture
and
Natural
Resources to the President of the
Philippines. Considering that the
President has the power to
review on appeal the orders or
acts of the respondents, the
failure of the petitioner-appellant
to take that appeal is failure on
his part to exhaust his
47
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
State.
Forestry
Law;
Administrative
Law;
Contracts; A timber license may he revoked
any time pursuant to its express terms.
Granting
arguendo,
that
petitioner-appellants timber license is valid,
still respondents-appellees can validly
revoke his timber license. As pointed out
earlier, paragraph 27 of the rules and
regulations included in the ordinary timber
license states: The terms and conditions of
this license are subject to change at the
discretion of the Director of Forestry, and
that this license may be made to expire at an
earlier date, when public interests so
require (Exh. D, p. 22, CFI rec.). A timber
license is an instrument by which the State
regulates the utilization and disposition of
forest resources to the end that public
welfare is promoted. A timber license is not
a contract within the purview of the due
process clause; it is only a license or
privilege, which can be validly withdrawn
whenever dictated by public interest or
public welfare as in this case.
Director
of
Forestry
under
the
administrative control of Department
Secretary.As provided in the aforecited
provision, timber licenses are subject to the
authority of the Director of Forestry. The
utilization and disposition of forest resources
is directly under the control and supervision
of the Director of Forestry. However, while
Section 1831 of the Revised Administrative
Code provides that forest products shall be
cut, gathered and removed from any forest
only upon license from the Director of
Forestry, it is no less true that as a
subordinate officer, the Director of Forestry
is subject to the control of the Department
Head or the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources (Sec. 79[c], Rev. Adm.
Anouevo-Ongkeko
48
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
Mangrove Swamps
25 DIRECTOR G.R. No. The said land consists of 178,113 The
OF
FORESTRY
VS.
VILLAREA
L
32266.
February
27, 1989
CRUZ, J.
basic
question
before
the
Court is the
legal
classification
of mangrove
swamps,
or
manglares, as
they
are
commonly
known. If they
are part of our
public forest
lands, they are
not alienable
under
the
Constitution.
If they are
considered
public
agricultural
lands,
they
may
be
acquired under
private
ownership.
The
private
respondents
claim to the
land
in
question must
be judged by
these criteria.
Anouevo-Ongkeko
49
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
Mineral Lands
26 ATOK-BIG
WEDGE
MINING
CO. VS. CA
G.R. No.
88883.
January
18, 1991
PARAS,
J.
Anouevo-Ongkeko
Whether
or
not
an
individual's
long
term
occupation of
land of the
public domain
vests him with
such
rights
It is of no importance whether
Benguet and Atok had secured a
patent for as held in the Gold
Creek Mining Corporation case,
for all physical purposes of
ownership, the owner is not
required to secure a patent as
long as he complies with the
provisions of the mining laws;
50
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
called Declaration of Location.
The said Declaration of Location of
mineral claim was duly recorded in the
Office of the Mining Recorder
sometime on January 2, 1931. Fredia
mineral claim, together with other
mineral claims, was sold by A.I.
Reynolds to Big Wedge Mining
Company, the earlier corporate name
of Atok Big Wedge Mining Company,
Inc. (Atok for short; herein petitioner)
in a Deed of Sale executed on
November 2, 1931. Since then
petitioner Atok has been in continuous
and
exclusive
ownership
and
possession of said claim up to the
present .
Anouevo-Ongkeko
51
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
private respondent Consi repaired the
said house that people came to take
pictures and told him that the lot
belongs to Atok. Private respondent
Consi has been paying taxes on said
land which his father before him had
occupied .
On January 1984, the security guards
of Atok informed Feliciano Reyes,
Security Officer of Atok, that a
construction was being undertaken at
the area of the Fredia mineral claim by
private respondent Liwan Consi.
Feliciano Reyes instructed the cashier
to go and take pictures of the
construction. Feliciano Reyes himself
and other security guards went to the
place of the construction to verify and
then to the police to report the matter.
On March 1, 1984, Atok filed a
complaint for forcible entry and
detainer against Liwan Consi , which
was dismissed after due hearing by the
MTC of Itogon in favor of Liwan
Consi. Petitioner ATOK appealed to
the RTC of Baguio, which reversed the
decision of the MTC, ordering
defendant Liwan Consi to vacate the
premises of the Fredia Mineral claim,
restoring possession thereof to the
plaintiff Atok Big Wedge Mining
Company. Defendant Liwan Cosi was
further ordered to remove and demolish
the house he constructed in the
premises of the land of Fredia Mineral
claim.
Anouevo-Ongkeko
52
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
ATOK
filed
a
motion
for
reconsideration, which was denied by
the CA. Hence, this petition.
National Parks
27 PALOMO
VS. CA
G.R. No.
95608.
January
21, 1997
ROMER
O, J.
Anouevo-Ongkeko
Whether
or
not forest land
may be owned
by
private
persons.
53
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
original certificates of title were lost
during the Japanese occupation,
Ignacio Palomo filed a petition for
reconstitution with the Court of First
Instance of Albay on May 1970. The
Register of Deeds of Albay issued
Transfer Certificates of Title Nos.
3911, 3912, 3913 and 3914 sometime
in October 1953. Sometime in July
1954 President Ramon Magsaysay
issued Proclamation No. 47 converting
the area embraced by Executive Order
No. 40 into the "Tiwi Hot Spring
National Park," under the control,
management,
protection
and
administration
of
the
defunct
Commission of Parks and Wildlife,
now a division of the Bureau of Forest
Development. The area was never
released as alienable and disposable
portion of the public domain and,
therefore, is neither susceptible to
disposition under the provisions of the
Public Land Law nor registerable under
the Land Registration Act. The
Palomos, however, continued in
possession of the property, paid real
estate taxes thereon and introduced
improvements by planting rice,
bananas, pandan and coconuts. On
April 8, 1971, petitioner Carmen de
Buenaventura and spouses Ignacio
Palomo
and
Trinidad
Pascual
mortgaged the parcels of land to
guarantee a loan of P200,000 from the
Bank of the Philippine Islands.
Anouevo-Ongkeko
54
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
L-29675.
Septembe
r
30,
1969.
FERNAN
DO, J.
Anouevo-Ongkeko
55
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
66807.
January
26, 1989.
SARMIE
NTO, J.
Anouevo-Ongkeko
56
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
public domain. It appears that barrio
folk also opposed the application. On
16 January 1956, by virtue of a final
judgment in said case, supplemented
by orders issued on 21 March 1956 and
13 August 1956, the Alagads were
declared owners of Lot 1 and the
remaining portion, or Lot 2, was
declared public land. Decree N-51479
was entered and OCT 0- 401, dated 18
October 1956, was issued in the names
of the Alagads. In August 1966, the
Alagads filed before the Municipal
Court of Pila, Laguna (Civil Case 52)
an action to evict the barrio folk
occupying portions of Lot 1. On 8
August 1968, judgment was rendered
in the eviction case ordering the barrio
folk therein to return possession of the
premises to the Alagads. The barrio
folk did not appeal. The Republic filed
a petition for annulment of title and
reversion, insofar as the 1.42 hectare
northwestern portion on end of Lot 1 is
concerned, contending that such is
foreshore land, and that the Alagads
could not have had an imperfect title to
it as it was the barrio folk who filled up
the land to elevate the land to its
present condition. The Court, on 6
October 1970, issued a writ of
preliminary injunction enjoining the
Provincial Sheriff of Laguna or his
deputies from enforcing the writ of
execution issued in Civil Case 52, and
the Alagads from selling, mortgaging,
disposing or otherwise entering into
any transaction affecting the area. The
case was set for pre-trial on 6 July
1971,
to
which
the
attorney
representing the Republic did not
appear. On 16 July 1971, the court
dismissed the complaint. The Republic
filed a motion for reconsideration, was
Anouevo-Ongkeko
57
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
set for hearing, and finally denied by
the court. Appeal was made to the
Court of Appeals, which sustained the
trial court for failure to show in the
record on appeal that the appeal was
perfected on time. Hence, the appeal.
The Supreme Court reversed the
decision of the lower courts, and
reinstated the Republics complaint and
thus remanded the case to the trial
court for further proceedings.
155012.
April 14,
2004
DAVIDE,
JR., C.J.
Anouevo-Ongkeko
application of
the
respondents be
granted? NO
58
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
Compliance with the All Requirements for a Government Grant Ipso Jure Converts Land to Private Ownership
CHO No.
Oh Cho, a Chinese citizen, purchased Whether
or PUBLIC
LANDS;
WHAT
LANDS The earliest possession of the lot
31 OH
VS.
DIRECTOR
OF LANDS
48321.
August
31, 1946
PADILL
Anouevo-Ongkeko
not Oh Cho
had
title
Whether
or
not Oh Cho is
entitled to a
decree
of
BELONG
TO
PUBLIC
DOMAIN;
EXCEPTION. All lands that were not
acquired from the Government, either by
purchase or by grant, belong to the public
domain. An exception to the rule would be
any land that should have been in the
59
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
A, J
Anouevo-Ongkeko
registration
60
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
L-73002.
December
29, 1986
NARVAS
A, J.
Anouevo-Ongkeko
is already a
private land YES
W/N
the
constitutional
prohibition
against their
acquisition by
private
corporations
or associations
applies- NO
61
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
Anouevo-Ongkeko
62
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
33
NATIVIDA
D
VS.
COURT OF
APPEALS
G.R. No.
88233.
October 4,
1991
GRIO-A
QUINO,
J.
Anouevo-Ongkeko
63
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
52518.
August
13, 1991
DAVIDE,
JR., J.
Anouevo-Ongkeko
manufacture,
processing
and
exportation of plywood. It renewed its
timber license, which was granted by
the government and shall be valid for
25 years, in early 1960. Said license
authorizes the company to cut, collect
and remove timber from the portion of
timber land located in certain
municipalities of Laguna, including
not UP is
owner of
portion
timberland
Paete.
the
the
of
in
64
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
Paete.
Anouevo-Ongkeko
65
Natural Resources and Environmental Law with Land, Title and Deeds
Anouevo-Ongkeko
66