Montano v.

The Insular Government lands of the Government already reserved or

devoted to public use or subject to private right.
ISABELO MONTANO Y MARCIAL vs. THE
In other words, the Government owns real
INSULAR GOVERNMENT, ET AL.
estate which is part of the "public lands" and
Tracey, J.
other real estate which is not part thereof.
Facts: : 
Government property was of two kinds — first,
Isabelo Montano presented a petition to the that of public use or service, said to be of public
Court of Land Registration for the inscription of ownership, and second, that of having a private
a piece of land in the barrio of Libis, character or use. (Civil Code, arts. 339 and 340.)
municipality of Caloocan, used as a fishery Lands of the first class, while they retain their
having a superficial area of 10,805 square public character are inalienable. Those of the
meters, and bounded as set out in the petition; second are not. Therefore, there is much real
its value according to the last assessment being property belonging to the Government which is
$505.05, United States currency. This petition not affected by statutes for the settlement,
was opposed by the Solicitor-General in behalf prescription or sale of public lands. Examples in
of the Director of Lands, and by the entity point are properties occupied by public
known asObras Pias de la Sagrada Mitra, the buildings or devoted to municipal or other
former on the ground that the land in question governmental uses.
belonged to the Government of the United
States, and the latter, that it was the absolute It is settled that the general legislation of
owner of all the dry land along the eastern Congress in respect to public lands does not
boundary of the said fishery. The Court of Land extend to tide lands. It provided that the scrip
Registration in its decision of December 1, 1906, might be located on the unoccupied and
dismissed the said oppositions without costs unappropriated public lands. As said inNewhall
and decreed, after a general entry by default, vs. Sanger(92 U.S. 761, 763.) A marshland which
the adjudication and registration of the is inundated by the rise of tides belong to the
property described in the petition, in favor of State and is not susceptible to appropriation by
Isabelo Montano y Marcial. From this decision occupation, has no application in the present
only counsel for the Director of Public Lands case inasmuch as in said case the land subject
appealed to this court. and precisely Isabelo matter of the litigation was not yet titled
Montano sought title thereon on the strength
of 10 years' occupation pursuant to paragraph
6, section 5 of Act 926 of the Philippine The court ruled that there was misapprehension
Commission on the part of those who are not  familiar with
the US legislation and that said legislation states
Issue:  that the term public lands is equivalent to
public domain. Also, government lands and
Whether or not the land in question can be
public domain are not synonymous to one
acquired by Montano
another. Government land includes public
domains and other types of lands. Also, the
Held: 
government has two kinds of property – those
Accordingly, "government land" and "public that are for public use or service or said to be of
domain" are not synonymous items. The first public ownership, and the other of having a
includes not only the second, but also other private character or use. Those for public use or
service are inalienable while the private  Whether unclassified lands of the public
properties are the opposite. domain are automatically deemed agricultural
land, therefore making these lands alienable.
Therefore, there is much real property
belonging to the Government which is not
affected by statutes for the settlement,
HELD:
prescription or sale of public lands.
No. To prove that the land subject of an
application for registration is alienable, the
Secretary of DENR vs Yap applicant must establish the existence of a
positive act of the government such as a
Natural Resources and Environmental Laws:
presidential proclamation or an executive order,
Regalian Doctrine
an administrative action, investigative reports
GR No. 167707; Oct 8, 2008 of the Bureau of Lands investigators, and a
legislative act or statute.
FACTS:
A positive act declaring land as alienable and
This petition is for a review on certiorari of the disposable is required. In keeping with the
decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming presumption of state ownership, the Court has
that of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Kalibo time and again emphasized that there must be
Aklan, which granted the petition for a positive act of the government, such as an
declaratory relief filed by respondents- official proclamation, declassifying inalienable
claimants Mayor Jose Yap et al, and ordered the public land into disposable land for agricultural
survey of Boracay for titling purposes. or other purposes.
On Nov. 10, 1978, President Marcos issued The Regalian Doctrine dictates that all lands of
Proclamation No. 1801 declaring Boracay Island the public domain belong to the State, that the
as a tourist zone and marine reserve. Claiming State is the source of any asserted right to
that Proc. No. 1801 precluded them from filing ownership of land and charged with the
an application for a judicial confirmation of conservation of such patrimony.
imperfect title or survey of land for titling
purposes, respondents-claimants filed a petition
for declaratory relief with the RTC in Kalibo,
All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly
Aklan.
within private ownership are presumed to
The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor belong to the State. Thus, all lands that have
General (OSG) opposed the petition countering not been acquired from the government, either
that Boracay Island was an unclassified land of by purchase or by grant, belong to the State as
the public domain. It formed part of the mass of part of the inalienable public domain.  
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.

ISSUE:
PACIFICO M. VALIAO, for himself and in behalf compelled them to file complaints of Grave
of his co-heirs LODOVICO, RICARDO, Coercion and Qualified Theft against Zafra.
BIENVENIDO, all Surnamed VALIAO and The RTC, in its Decision dated December 15,
NEMESIO M. GRANDEA, Petitioners, v. 1995, granted petitioners' application for
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, MACARIO registration of the subject property.
ZAFRA, and MANUEL YUSAY, Respondents. Aggrieved by the Decision, the private
oppositors and the Republic, through Assistant
FACTS: On August 11, 1987, petitioners filed Prosecutor Josue A. Gatin, filed an appeal with
with the RTC an application for registration of a the CA, which reversed the trial court's findings
parcel of land situated in Barrio Galicia, in its Decision dated June 23, 2005.
Municipality of Ilog, Negros Occidental. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration,
which was denied by the CA. Hence, the present
On June 20, 1988, private oppositors filed their petition.
Motion to Dismiss the application on the
following grounds: (1) the land applied for has ISSUE:
not been declared alienable and disposable; (2)
res judicata has set in to bar the application for Is the piece of land in question alienable and
registration; and (3) the application has no disposable land of the public domain.
factual or legal basis. HELD: Under Rule 45, the principle is well-
established that this Court is not a trier of facts
On August 24, 1988, the Republic of the and that only questions of law may be raised.
Philippines (Republic), through the Office of the This rule, however, is subject to certain
Solicitor General (OSG), opposed the application exceptions. One of these is when the findings of
for registration. the appellate court are contrary to those of the
trial court. Due to the divergence of the findings
On July 3, 1989, the RTC denied private of the CA and the RTC, the Court will now re-
oppositors' Motion to Dismiss. Trial thereafter examine the facts and evidence adduced before
ensued. the lower courts.

In support of their application for registration, Under Section 14 (1) of Presidential Decree No.
petitioners alleged that they acquired the (PD) 1529, otherwise known as the Property
subject property in 1947, upon the death of Registration Decree, petitioners need to prove
their uncle Basilio who purchased the land from that: (1) the land forms part of the alienable
a certain Fermin Payogao, pursuant to a Deed and disposable land of the public domain; and
of Sale dated May 19, 1916 entirely handwritten (2) they, by themselves or through their
in Spanish language. Basilio possessed the land predecessors-in-interest, have been in open,
in question from May 19, 1916 until his death in continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession
1947. Basilio's possession was open, and occupation of the subject land under a
continuous, peaceful, adverse, notorious, bona fide claim of ownership from June 12,
uninterrupted and in the concept of an owner. 1945 or earlier.
Upon Basilio's death, the applicants as co-heirs
possessed the said land until 1966, No such evidence was offered by the petitioners
whenoppositor Zafra unlawfully and violently to show that the land in question has been
dispossessed them of their property, which classified as alienable and disposable land of
the public domain. In the absence of ownership over the subject property by way of
incontrovertible evidence to prove that the purchase from predecessors-in-interest who
subject property is already classified as had been in continuous, open, adverse, public,
alienable and disposable, we must consider the uninterrupted, exclusive, and notorious
same as still inalienable public domain. Verily, possession thereof for more than thirty (30)
the rules on the confirmation of imperfect title years, or from June 12, 1945. To prove that the
do not apply unless and until the land subject subject property is alienable and disposable
thereof is released in an official proclamation to land of the public domain, they presented the
that effect so that it may form part of the CENRO Certificate dated March 20, 1996.
disposable agricultural lands of the public
domain. The Republic of the Philippines (Republic)
opposed the application on the ground that the
applicants failed to prove that the land sought
G.R. No. 175177 : October 24, 2012 to be registered is alienable and disposable. The
Republic also argued that the CENRO Certificate
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. that Jaralve, et al. relied on was erroneously
GLORIA JARALVE substituted by ALAN JESS issued; thus, it did not afford them any vested
JARALVE DOCUMENTO, JR., EDGARDO right.
JARALVE, SERAFIN UY, JR., SHELLA UY, NIMFA
LAGNADA, PANTALEON SAY A-ANG, STARGLAD The RTC ruled in favor of Jaralve, et al. On
INTERNATIONAL AND DEVELOPMENT appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC.
CORPORATION, ANNIE TAN, TEOTIMO
CABARRUBIAS, JESSICA DACLAN, MA. EMMA ISSUE: Whether or not the grant of Jaralve, et
RAMAS, DANILO DEEN, and ERIC ANTHONY al.s application for registration of title to the
DEEN. Respondents. subject property was proper under the law and
jurisprudence?
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
HELD: The Court finds the petition meritorious.
FACTS:
CIVIL LAW: Regalian doctrine; alienable and
On October 22, 1996, Gloria Jaralve, Edgardo disposable lands of public domain- proof
Jaralve, Serafin Uy, Jr., Shella Uy, Nimfa required
Lagnada, Pantaleon Saya-Ang, Starglad
International and Development Corporation, This Court agrees with the petitioner that the
Annie Tan, Teotimo Cabarrubias, Jessica Daclan, respondents failed to prove in accordance with
and Ma. Emma Ramas filed an Application with law that the subject property is within the
the RTC of Cebu City, for the registration in their alienable and disposable portion of the public
names of Lot Sgs-07-000307 (subject property), domain. The Public Land Act or Commonwealth
under Presidential Decree No. 1529. Jaralve, et Act No. 141, until this day, is the existing
al. declared that they were the co-owners in fee general law governing the classification and
simple of the subject property, with an area of disposition of lands of the public domain,
731,380 square meters, belonging to Cadastral except for timber and mineral lands. Under the
Lot 18590, and situated in Barangay Quiot, City Regalian doctrine embodied in our Constitution,
of Cebu. They claimed that they had acquired land that has not been acquired from the
government, either by purchase, grant, or any authority of the CENRO to certify as alienable
other mode recognized by law, belongs to the and disposable.
State as part of the public domain.
Petition is GRANTED. CA resolution is REVERSED
Land classification or reclassification cannot be and SET ASIDE.
assumed. It must be proved. This Court, in
Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., ruled that a
CENRO or PENRO Certification is not enough to
certify that a land is alienable and disposable:
"Further, it is not enough for the PENRO or
CENRO to certify that a land is alienable and
disposable. The applicant for land registration
must prove that the DENR Secretary had
approved the land classification and released
the land of the public domain as alienable and
disposable, and that the land subject of the
application for registration falls within the
approved area per verification through survey
by the PENRO or CENRO. In addition, the
applicant for land registration must present a
copy of the original classification approved by
the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy
by the legal custodian of the official records.
These facts must be established to prove that
the land is alienable and disposable."

Moreover, DENR Administrative Order (DAO)

No. 20 dated May 30, 1988, delineated the
functions and authorities of the offices within
the DENR. Under Section G(1) of the above
DAO, CENROs issue certificates of land
classification status for areas below 50 hectares.
For those falling above 50 hectares, the
issuance of such certificates is within the
function of the PENROs, as per Section F(1) of
the same DAO. This delineation, with regard to
the offices authorized to issue certificates of
land classification status, was retained in DAO
No. 38 dated April 19, 1990.

In the case at bar, the subject property has an

area of 731,380 square meters or 73.138
hectares. Clearly, under DAO No. 38, series of
1990, the subject property is beyond the