Collado v CA there are now twenty-five co-owners in pro-indiviso shares of five

Regalian Doctrine | October 4, 2002 | Carpio, J. hectares each. During the hearings, petitioners submitted evidence
to prove that there have been nine transfers of rights among them
and their predecessors-in-interest (Found in Notes)
SUMMARY: Petitioners want to register a parcel of land located in the ● During the hearing on January 9, 1991, only the assistant provincial
mariquina watershed through a judicial confirmation of imperfect title. RTC prosecutor appeared without the Solicitor General. For failure of the
ruled in their favor, but CA reversed and annulled the RTC decision. SC oppositors to present their evidence, the land registration court
ruled that said lot is inalienable land, being classified as a natural resource issued an order considering the case submitted for decision based
or a watershed reserve as declared by EO 33 in 1904, and petitioners did on the evidence of the petitioners. The court later set aside the order
not meet the requirements set by C.A. No. 141. and reset the hearing to January 14, 1991 for the presentation of the
evidence of the oppositors. On this date, counsel for oppositors
DOCTRINE: One claiming private rights must prove that he has complied failed to appear again despite due notice. Hence, the court again
with C.A. No. 141, as amended, otherwise known as the Public Land Act, issued an order submitting the case for decision based on the
which prescribes the substantive as well as the procedural requirements for evidence of the petitioners.
acquisition of public lands. This law requires at least thirty (30) years of ● TC Ruling: Petitioners showed sufficient evidence of ownership of
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and possession of land
agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of ● CA Ruling: TC Ruling null and void for lack of jurisdiction. Under the
acquisition, immediately preceding the filing of the application for free Regalian Doctrine, which is enshrined in the 1935 (Art. XIII, Sec. 1),
patent. The rationale for the 30-year period lies in the presumption that the 1973 (Art. XIV, Sec. 8), and 1987 Constitution (Art. XII, Sec. 2), all
land applied for pertains to the State, and that the occupants and/or lands of the public domain belong to the State. An applicant, like the
possessors claim an interest therein only by virtue of their imperfect title or private respondents herein, for registration of a parcel of land bears
continuous, open and notorious possession. (Gordula v CA) the burden of overcoming the presumption that the land sought to be
registered forms part of the public domain (Director of Lands vs.
FACTS: Aquino, 192 SCRA 296). In the case at bar, the private respondents
● On April 25, 1985, petitioner Edna T. Collado filed with the land failed to present any evidence whatsoever that the land applied for
registration court an application for registration of a parcel of land. as described in Psu-162620 has been segregated from the bulk of
The Lot is situated in Barangay San Isidro (formerly known as Boso- the public domain and declared by competent authority to be
boso), Antipolo, Rizal, and covered by Survey Plan Psu- alienable and disposable. Worse, the technical description of Psu-
162620. Attached to the application was the technical description of 162620 signed by Robert C. Pangyarihan, Officer-in-Charge, Survey
the Lot as Lot Psu-162620 signed by Robert C. Pangyarihan, Officer- Division, Bureau of Lands, which was attached to the application of
in-Charge of the Survey Division, Bureau of Lands, which private respondents, categorically stated that "This survey is inside
stated, [t]his survey is inside IN-12 Mariquina Watershed. On March IN-12 Mariquina Watershed."
24, 1986, petitioner Edna T. Collado filed an Amended Application to
include additional co-applicants. ISSUE: W/N petitioners have registrable title over the lot – NO.
● The Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, and
the Municipality of Antipolo, through its Municipal Attorney and the RATIO:
Provincial Fiscal of Rizal, filed oppositions to petitioners 1. Under the Regalian Doctrine, all lands not otherwise appearing to be
application. In due course, the land registration court issued an order clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the
of general default against the whole world with the exception of the State. The Spaniards first introduced the doctrine to the Philippines
oppositors. through the Laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas,
● Petitioners alleged that they have occupied the Lot since time specifically, Law 14, Title 12, Book 4 of the Novisima Recopilacion
immemorial. Their possession has been open, public, notorious and de Leyes de las Indias which laid the foundation that all lands that
in the concept of owners. The Lot was surveyed in the name of were not acquired from the Government, either by purchase or by
Sesinando Leyva, one of their predecessors-in-interest, as early as grant, belong to the public domain. Upon the Spanish conquest of
March 22, 1902. Petitioners declared the Lot for taxation purposes the Philippines, ownership of all lands, territories and possessions in
and paid all the corresponding real estate taxes. According to them, the Philippines passed to the Spanish Crown
2. The Laws of the Indies were followed by the Ley Hipotecaria or public domain as well as all natural resources enumerated in the
the Mortgage Law of 1893. The Spanish Mortgage Law provided for Philippine Constitution belong to the State.
the systematic registration of titles and deeds as well as possessory 8. Watershed Reservation is a Natural Resource. The term natural
claims.The Royal Decree of 1894 or the Maura Law partly amended resource includes not only timber, gas, oil coal, minerals, lakes, and
the Mortgage Law as well as the Law of the Indies. The Maura Law submerged lands, but also, features which supply a human need and
was the last Spanish land law promulgated in the Philippines. It contribute to the health, welfare, and benefit of a community, and are
required the adjustment or registration of all agricultural lands, essential to the well-being thereof and proper enjoyment of property
otherwise the lands would revert to the state devoted to park and recreational purposes.
3. 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 9. Article 67 of the Water Code of the Philippines (PD 1067) provides:
individuals of lands creates the legal presumption that the lands are Art. 67. Any watershed or any area of land adjacent to any surface
alienable and disposable. water or overlying any ground water may be declared by the
4. In the meantime, in order to establish a system of registration by Department of Natural Resources as a protected area. Rules and
which recorded title becomes absolute, indefeasible and Regulations may be promulgated by such Department to prohibit or
imprescriptible, the legislature passed Act 496, otherwise known as control such activities by the owners or occupants thereof within the
the Land Registration Act, which took effect on February 1, 1903. Act protected area which may damage or cause the deterioration of the
496 placed all registered lands in the Philippines under the Torrens surface water or ground water or interfere with the investigation, use,
system. The Torrens system requires the government to issue a control, protection, management or administration of such waters.
certificate of title stating that the person named in the title is the 10. There is no proof that prior to the issuance of EO 33 in 1904,
owner of the property described therein, subject to liens and petitioners had acquired ownership or title to the Lot either by deed
encumbrances annotated on the title or reserved by law. The or by any other mode of acquisition from the State, as for instance by
certificate of title is indefeasible and imprescriptible and all claims to acquisitive prescription. As of 1904, Sesinando Leyva had only been
the parcel of land are quieted upon issuance of the certificate. PD in possession for two years. Verily, petitioners have not possessed
1529, known as the Property Registration Decree enacted on June the parcel of land in the manner and for the number of years required
11, 1978, amended and updated Act 496 by law for the confirmation of imperfect title.
5. The 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions adopted the Regalian 11. The period of occupancy after the issuance of EO 33 in 1904 could
doctrine substituting, however, the state, in lieu of the King, as the no longer be counted because as a watershed reservation, the Lot
owner of all lands and waters of the public domain. was no longer susceptible of occupancy, disposition, conveyance or
6. Justice Regalado: One of the fixed and dominating objectives of the alienation. Section 48 (b) of CA 141, as amended, applies
1935 Constitutional Convention was the nationalization and exclusively to alienable and disposable public agricultural
conservation of the natural resources of the country. There was an land. Forest lands, including watershed reservations, are excluded. It
overwhelming sentiment in the Convention in favor of the principle of is axiomatic that the possession of forest lands or other inalienable
state ownership of natural resources and the adoption of the public lands cannot ripen into private ownership.
Regalian doctrine. State ownership of natural resources was seen as 12. In fine, one claiming private rights must prove that he has complied
a necessary starting point to secure recognition of the states power with C.A. No. 141, as amended, otherwise known as the Public Land
to control their disposition, exploitation, development, or Act, which prescribes the substantive as well as the procedural
utilization. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention very well requirements for acquisition of public lands. This law requires at least
knew that the concept of State ownership of land and natural thirty (30) years of open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
resources was introduced by the Spaniards, however, they were not possession and possession of agricultural lands of the public
certain whether it was continued and applied by the Americans. To domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition, immediately
remove all doubts, the Convention approved the provision in the preceding the filing of the application for free patent. The rationale for
Constitution affirming the Regalian doctrine. the 30-year period lies in the presumption that the land applied for
7. Both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions prohibited the alienation of all pertains to the State, and that the occupants and/or possessors
natural resources except agricultural lands of the public domain. The claim an interest therein only by virtue of their imperfect title or
1987 Constitution readopted this policy. Indeed, all lands of the continuous, open and notorious possession. (Gordula v CA)
Ruling/Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision of
the Court of Appeals dated June 22, 1992 declaring null and void the
Decision dated January 30, 1991 of Branch 71, Regional Trial Court of
Antipolo, Rizal, in LRC No. 269-A, LRC Rec. No. N-59179 is AFFIRMED.