Republic Vs Naguiat Digest
Republic Vs Naguiat Digest
Natural Resources and Environmental Laws forest cover. Parcels of land classified as forest land application filed by Celestina Naguiat on 29
may actually be covered with grass or planted to December 1989 with the Regional Trial Court of
G.R. No. 134209; January 24, 2006 crops by kaingin cultivators or other farmers. "Forest Zambales, Branch 69. Applicant [herein respondent]
lands" do not have to be on mountains or in out of the alleges, inter alia, that she is the owner of the said
FACTS: way places. The classification is merely descriptive of parcels of land having acquired them by purchase
Celestina Naguiat filed an application for registration its legal nature or status and does not have to be from the LID Corporation which likewise acquired the
of title to four parcels of land located in Panan, descriptive of what the land actually looks like. same from Demetria Calderon, Josefina Moraga and
Botolan, Zambales. The applicant alleges that she is Fausto Monje and their predecessors-in-interest who
the owner of the said parcels of land having acquired Republic vs. Naguiat (Jan. 24, 2006) have been in possession thereof for more than thirty
them by purchase from its previous owners and their “unclassified lands cannot be acquired by adverse (30) years; and that to the best of her knowledge, said
predecessors-in-interest who have been in possession/occupation; occupation in the concept of lots suffer no mortgage or encumbrance of whatever
possession thereof for more than thirty (30) years; an owner however long cannot ripen into private kind nor is there any person having any interest, legal
and that to the best of her knowledge, said lots suffer ownership and be registered as a title.” or equitable, or in possession thereof.
no mortgage or encumbrance of whatever kind nor is
there any person having any interest, legal or Facts: On 29 June 1990, the Republic of the Philippines
equitable, or in possession thereof. Respondent applies for registration of title to 4 [herein petitioner]. . . filed an opposition to the
Petitioner Republic opposed on the ground that parcels of land contending she is the owner of the said application on the ground that neither the applicant
neither the applicant nor her predecessors-in interest land which she acquired from the LID Corporation nor her predecessors-in interest have been in open,
have been in open, continuous, exclusive and which in turn acquired the same from persons who continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
notorious possession and occupation of the lands in have been in possession thereof for more than 30 occupation of the lands in question since 12 June
question since 12 June 1945 or prior thereto, years. The Republic filed in opposition that said lands 1945 or prior thereto; that the muniments of title and
considering the fact that she has not established that belong to the public domain and not subject to tax payment receipts of applicant do not constitute
the lands in question have been declassified from private appropriation. competent and sufficient evidence of a bona-fide
forest or timber zone to alienable and disposable acquisition of the lands applied for or of his open,
property. Issue: continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
Whether or not the land in dispute as a forest land occupation thereof in the concept of (an) owner; that
ISSUE: belonging to public domain may be appropriated as the applicant’s claim of ownership in fee simple on
Did the areas in question cease to have the status of private property. the basis of Spanish title or grant can no longer be
forest or other inalienable lands of the public availed of . . .; and that the parcels of land applied for
domain? Ruling: are part of the public domain belonging to the
For a public forest land/reserves to be subject for Republic of the Philippines not subject to private
HELD: private appropriation, it requires an express and appropriation.
No, the said areas are still classified as forest land.The positive act of the government that it will become a
issue of whether or not respondent and her part of alienable and disposable agricultural lands of
predecessors-in-interest have been in open, exclusive public domain. Occupation in the concept of an WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court hereby
and continuous possession of the parcels of land in owner cannot ripen into private ownership and be adjudicates the parcels of land situated in Panan,
question is of little moment. For, unclassified land registered to as a title. Botolan, Zambales, appearing on Plan AP-03-003447
cannot be acquired by adverse occupation or containing an area of 3,131 square meters, appearing
possession; occupation thereof in the concept of REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,vs.CELESTINA on Plan AP-03-003446 containing an area of 15,322
owner, however long, cannot ripen into private NAGUIAT, G.R. No. 134209 January 24, 2006 containing an area of 15,387 square meters to herein
ownership and be registered as title. applicant Celestina T. Naguiat, of legal age, Filipino
A forested area classified as forest land of the public This is an application for registration of title to four (4) citizen, married to Rommel Naguiat and a resident of
domain does not lose such classification simply parcels of land located in Panan, Botolan, Zambales, Angeles City, Pampanga together with all the
improvements existing thereon and orders and long, cannot ripen into private ownership and be
decrees registration in her name in accordance with The theory of [petitioner] that the properties in registered as title.22
Act No. 496, Commonwealth Act No. 14, [should be question are lands of the public domain cannot be
141] as amended, and Presidential Decree No. 1529. sustained as it is directly against the above doctrine. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED and the
This adjudication, however, is subject to the various Said doctrine is a reaffirmation of the principle assailed decision dated May 29, 1998 of the Court of
easements/reservations provided for under pertinent established in the earlier cases . . . that open, Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 37001 is REVERSED and SET
laws, presidential decrees and/or presidential letters exclusive and undisputed possession of alienable ASIDE. Accordingly, respondent’s application for
of instructions which should be annotated/ projected public land for period prescribed by law creates the original registration of title in Land Registration Case
on the title to be issued. And once this decision legal fiction whereby the land, upon completion of No. N-25-1 of the Regional Trial Court at Iba,
becomes final, let the corresponding decree of the requisite period, ipso jure and without the need Zambales, Branch 69, is DENIED.
registration be immediately issued. (Words in bracket of judicial or other sanction, ceases to be public land
added) and becomes private property …. (Word in bracket
and underscoring added.)
Hence, the Republic’s present recourse on its basic
submission that the CA’s decision "is not in Here, respondent never presented the required
accordance with law, jurisprudence and the evidence, certification from the proper government agency or
since respondent has not established with the official proclamation reclassifying the land applied for
required evidence her title in fee simple or imperfect as alienable and disposable. Matters of land
title in respect of the subject lots which would classification or reclassification cannot be assumed. It
warrant their registration under … (P.D. 1529 or calls for proof.18 Aside from tax receipts, respondent
Public Land Act (C.A.) 141." In particular, petitioner submitted in evidence the survey map and technical
Republic faults the appellate court on its finding descriptions of the lands, which, needless to state,
respecting the length of respondent’s occupation of provided no information respecting the classification
the property subject of her application for of the property. As the Court has held, however,
registration and for not considering the fact that she these documents are not sufficient to overcome the
has not established that the lands in question have presumption that the land sought to be registered
been declassified from forest or timber zone to forms part of the public domain.19
alienable and disposable property.
It cannot be overemphasized that unwarranted
Public forest lands or forest reserves, unless appropriation of public lands has been a notorious
declassified and released by positive act of the practice resorted to in land registration cases.20 For
Government so that they may form part of the this reason, the Court has made it a point to stress,
disposable agricultural lands of the public domain, are when appropriate, that declassification of forest and
not capable of private appropriation.5 As to these mineral lands, as the case may be, and their
assets, the rules on confirmation of imperfect title do conversion into alienable and disposable lands need
not apply.6 Given this postulate, the principal issue to an express and positive act from the government.21
be addressed turns on the question of whether or not
the areas in question have ceased to have the status The foregoing considered, the issue of whether or not
of forest or other inalienable lands of the public respondent and her predecessor-in-interest have
domain. been in open, exclusive and continuous possession of
the parcels of land in question is now of little
In the present case, the CA assumed that the lands in moment. For, unclassified land, as here, cannot be
question are already alienable and disposable. Wrote acquired by adverse occupation or possession;
the appellate court: occupation thereof in the concept of owner, however