Haystack: Director of Forestry v. Villareal (GR L-32266, 27 February 1989)

Director of Forestry v. Villareal
[G.R. No. L-32266. February 27, 1989.]
En Banc, Cruz (J): 13 concur, 1 took no part.

Facts: Ruperto Villareal applied for its registration on 25 January 1949, a land consisting of 178,113 sq. m. of mangrove swamps located in the municipality of Sapian, Capiz, alleging that he and his predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of the land for more than 40 years. He was opposed by several persons, including the Director of Foresty on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines. After trial, the application was approved by the CFI Capiz. The decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Director of Forestry then came to the Supreme Court in a petition for review on certiorari claiming that the land in dispute was forestal in nature and not subject to private appropriation.

The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and dismissed the application for registration of title of Villareal, with cost against him; the decision being immediately executory.

1. Classification of the lands of the public domain
By the Philippine Bill of 1902, one of the earlier American organic acts in the country, lands of the public domain in the Philippine Islands were classified into three grand divisions: agricultural, mineral and timber or forest lands. This classification was maintained in the Constitution of the Commonwealth, promulgated in 1935, until it was superseded by the Constitution of 1973. The 1973 charter expanded the classification of public lands to include industrial or commercial, residential, resettlement, and grazing lands and even permitted the legislature to provide for other categories. This provision has been reproduced, but with substantial modifications, in the present 1987 Constitution.

2. Only public agricultural land allowed to be alienated under Commonwealth Constitution
Under the Commonwealth Constitution, which was the charter in force when the case arose, only agricultural lands were allowed to be alienated. Their disposition was provided for under CA 141 (Public Land Act). Mineral and timber or forest lands were not subject to private ownership unless they were first reclassified as agricultural lands and so released for alienation.

3. Decisions reiterating mangrove swamps are agricultural land


a. Montano v. Insular Government; Mangrove swamps or manglares defined
In Montano v. Insular Government (1909) mangrove swamps or manglares were defined as “mud flats, alternately washed and exposed by the tide, in which grows various kindred plants which will not live except when watered by the sea, extending their roots deep into the mud and casting their seeds, which also germinate there. These constitute the mangrove flats of the tropics, which exist naturally, but which are also, to some extent cultivated by man for the sake of the combustible wood of the mangrove and like trees as well as for the useful nipa palm propagated thereon. Although these flats are literally tidal lands, they cannot be so regarded in the sense in which that term is used in the cases cited or in general American jurisprudence. The waters flowing over them are not available for purpose of navigation, and they may be disposed of without impairment of the public interest in what remains.

b. Montano v. Insular Government; Mangrove swamps considered agricultural lands and susceptible to private ownership
Mangrove swamps were considered agricultural lands and so susceptible of private ownership, as under the uncertain and somewhat unsatisfactory condition of the law, the custom had grown of converting manglares and nipa lands into fisheries which became a common feature of settlement along the coast and at the same time of the change of sovereignty constituted one of the most productive industries of the Islands, the abrogation of which would destroy vested interests and prove a public disaster.

c. Jocson v. Director of Forestry; Manglare with few trees is not timber land
Notwithstanding the definition provided by the legislature in the 1917 Administrative Code as to “public forests”, the Court maintained the doctrine in the Montano case when 2 years later it held in the case of Jocson v. Director of Forestry that “the words timber land are always translated in the Spanish translation of that Act (Act of Congress) as 'terrenos forestales.' The Court thought there is an error in this translation and that a better translation would be 'terrenos madereros. Timber land in English means land with trees growing on it. The manglar plant would never be cited a tree in English but a bush, and land which has only bushes, shrubs or aquatic plants growing on it cannot be called 'timber land.' The fact that there are a few trees growing in a manglare or nipa swamps does not change the general character of the land from manglare to timber land."

d. Jocson v. Director of Forestry; Definition found in the 1917 Administrative Code cannot affect rights vested prior to its enactment; Act 926 applies to those cases
Addressing itself directly to Section 1820, the Court declared that “in the case of Mapa vs. Insular Government (10 Phil. Rep., 175), the Court said that the phrase 'agricultural lands' as used in Act 926 means those public lands acquired from Spain which are not timber or mineral lands. Whatever may have been the meaning of the term 'forestry' under the Spanish law, the Act of Congress of July 1st, 1902, classifies the public lands in the Philippine Islands as timber, mineral or agricultural lands, and all public lands that are not timber or mineral lands are necessarily agricultural public lands, whether they are used as nipa swamps, manglares, fisheries or ordinary farm lands. The definition of forestry as including manglares found in the Administrative Code of 1917 cannot affect rights which vested prior to its enactment. These lands being neither timber nor mineral lands, the trial court should have considered them agricultural lands. If they are agricultural lands, then the rights of appellants are fully established by Act 926."

e. Vda. De Centenera v. Obias; Mangrove lands are not forest as used in the Act of Congress
In Garchitorena Vda. de Centenera v. Obias, promulgated on 4 March 1933, more than 15 years after the effectivity of the Administrative Code of 1917. The Court declare that the opposition of the Director of Forestry is untenable, inasmuch as it has been definitely decided that mangrove lands are not forest lands in the sense in which this phrase is used in the Act of Congress. No elaboration was made on this conclusion which was merely based on the cases of Montano and Jocson.

f. Tongson v. Director of Forestry; Mangrove lands are agricultural in nature
In Tongson v. Director of Forestry, the ruling in Vda. De Centenera v. Obias was reiterated, declaring that the mangrove lands in litis were agricultural in nature. The decision even quoted with approval the statement of the trial court that “mangrove swamps where only trees of mangrove species grow, where the trees are small and sparse, fit only for firewood purposes and the trees growing are not of commercial value as lumber do not convert the land into public land. Such lands are not forest in character. They do not form part of the public domain."

g. Republic v. de Porkan; All public lands not timber or mineral lands are agricultural public lands
In Republic v. De Porkan (1988), the Court, citing Krivenko v. Register of Deeds, reiterated the ruling in the Mapa case that "all public lands that are not timber or mineral lands are necessarily agricultural public lands, whether they are used as nipa swamps, manglares, fisheries or ordinary farm lands."

4. Administrative Code of 1917; Mangrove swamps form part of the public forests of the country
Subsequently, the Philippine Legislature categorically declared that mangrove swamps form part of the public forests of this country. This it did in the Administrative Code of 1917, which became effective on 1 October 1917, providing in Section 1820 of said code that “for the purpose of this chapter 'public forest' includes, except as otherwise specially indicated, all unreserved public land, including nipa and mangrove swamps, and all forest reserves of whatever character." The legislative definition embodied in Section 1820 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917, remains unamended up to now, provides that mangrove swamps or manglares form part of the public forests of the Philippines. As such, they are not alienable under the Constitution and may not be the subject of private ownership until and unless they are first released as forest land and classified as alienable agricultural land.

5. Decisions declaring mangrove lands form part of public domain


a. Yngson v. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources; Bureau of Fisheries has no jurisdiction over mangrove lands still classified as forest lands
In Yngson v. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources (1983), the Court ruled "that the Bureau of Fisheries has no jurisdiction to dispose of swamplands or mangrove lands forming part of the public domain while such lands are still classified as forest lands."

b. Heirs of Amunategui v. Director of Forestry; Forests do not lose classification if stripped of its cover
In Heirs of Amunategui v. Director of Forestry, the Court held that “a forested area classified as forest land of the public domain does not lose such classification simply because loggers or settlers may have stripped it of its forest cover. Parcels of land classified as forest land may actually be covered with grass or planted to crops by kaingin cultivators or other farmers. 'Forested lands' do not have to be on mountains or in out-of-the-way places. Swampy areas covered by mangrove trees, nipa palms, and other trees growing in brackish or sea water may also be classified as forest land. The classification is descriptive of its legal nature or status and does not have to be descriptive of what the land actually looks like. Unless and until the land classified as 'forest' is released in an official proclamation to that effect so that it may form part of the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain, the rules on confirmation of imperfect titles do not apply."

c. Vallarta v. IAC; Forest lands or swamp mangrove are not private properties, not registerable
In Vallarta v. Intermediate Appellate Court, the Court agreed with the Solicitor General's submission that the land in dispute, which he described as "swamp mangrove or forestal land," were not private properties and so not registerable. This case was decided only 12 days after the De Porkan case.

6. Classification of land is the function initially belonging to the legislature; Role of each branch of government
The determination of the question of classification of lands is a function initially belonging to the legislature, which has the authority to implement the constitutional provision classifying the lands of the public domain (and is now even permitted to provide for more categories of public lands). The legislature having made such implementation, the executive officials may then, in the discharge of their own role, administer our public lands pursuant to their constitutional duty "to ensure that the laws be faithfully executed" and in accordance with the policy prescribed. For their part the courts will step into the picture if the rules laid down by the legislature are challenged or, assuming they are valid, it is claimed that they are not being correctly observed by the executive. Thus do the three departments, coordinating with each other, pursue and achieve the objectives of the Constitution in the conservation and utilization of our natural resources.

7. Delegation of powers, President given function of making periodic classification of public lands
In CA 141, the National Assembly delegated to the President of the Philippines the function of making periodic classifications of public lands. Section 6 provides that “the President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, shall from time to time classify the lands of the public domain into: (a) Alienable or disposable, (b) Timber, and (c) Mineral lands, and may at any time and in a like manner transfer such lands from one class to another, for the purposes of their administration and disposition." Section 7 of the same Act provides that “for the purposes of the administration and disposition of alienable or disposable lands, the President, upon recommendation by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, shall from time to time declare what lands are open to disposition or concession under this Act.”

With particular regard to alienable public lands, Section 9 of the same law provides that "for the purpose of their administration and disposition, the lands of the public domain alienable or open to disposition shall be classified, according to the use or purposes to which such lands are destined, as follows: (a) Agricultural; (b) Residential, commercial, industrial, or for similar productive purposes; (c) Educational, charitable, or other similar purposes; and (d) Reservations for townsites and for public and quasi-public uses. The President, upon recommendation by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, shall from time to time make the classifications provided for in this section, and may, at any time and in a similar manner, transfer lands from one class to another."

As for timber or forest lands, the Revised Administrative Code provides in Section 1826 (Regulation setting apart forest reserves; Revocation of same) that “Upon the recommendation of the Director of Forestry, with the approval of the Department Head, the President of the Philippines may set apart forest reserves from the public lands and he shall by proclamation declare the establishment of such reserves and the boundaries thereof, and thereafter such forest reserves shall not be entered, sold, or otherwise disposed of, but shall remain as such for forest uses, and shall be administered in the same manner as public forest. The President of the Philippines may in like manner by proclamation alter or modify the boundaries of any forest reserve from time to time, or revoke any such proclamation, and upon such revocation such forest reserve shall be and become part of the public lands as though such proclamation had never been made.” Section 1827 (Assignment of forest land for agricultural purposes) provides that “lands in public forest, not including forest reserves, upon the certification of the Director of Forestry that said lands are better adapted and more valuable for agricultural than for forest purposes and not required by the public interests to be kept under forest, shall be declared by the Department Head to be agricultural lands."

8. Mangrove swamps or manglares comprised within the public forests of the Philippines
Mangrove swamps or manglares should be understood as comprised within the public forests of the Philippines as defined in the Section 1820 of the Administrative Code of 1917. The legislature having so determined, the Court has no authority to ignore or modify its decision, and in effect veto it, in the exercise of our own discretion. The statutory definition remains unchanged to date and, no less noteworthy, is accepted and invoked by the executive department. More importantly, the said provision has not been challenged as arbitrary or unrealistic or unconstitutional, assuming the requisite conditions, to justify our judicial intervention and scrutiny. The law is thus presumed valid and so must be respected. The Court repeats its statement in the Amunategui case that 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. That determination having been made and no cogent argument having been raised to annul it, the Court has no duty as judges but to apply it.

9. Holdings as that manglares as agricultural land covers only those lands which ownership had already vested before the effectivity of the 1917 Administrative Code
The Court’s previous description of the term in question as pertaining to agricultural lands should be understood as covering only those lands over which ownership had already vested before the Administrative Code of 1917 became effective. Such lands could not be retroactively legislated as forest lands because this would be violative of a duly acquired property right protected by the due process clause.

10. Mangrove swamps of Sapian are forest land
The land under contention, being admittedly a part of the mangrove swamps of Sapian, and for which a minor forest license had in fact been issued by the Bureau of Forestry from 1920 to 1950, it must be considered forest land. 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.

11. Director of Forestry, not Director of Lands, has jurisdiction over the property
The survey plan of the mangrove swamps approved by the Director of Lands, to prove that the land is registerable, cannot be invoked. The mere existence of such a plan would not have the effect of converting the mangrove swamps, as forest land, into agricultural land. Such approval is ineffectual because it is clearly inofficious. The Director of Lands was not authorized to act in the premises. Under the law, it is the Director of Forestry who has the authority to determine whether forest land is more valuable for agricultural rather than forestry uses, as a basis for its declaration as agricultural land and release for private ownership.

12. Right to the registration of subject land not established
Applicant has not established his right to the registration of the subject land in his name. The record contains no convincing evidence of the existence of the informacion posesoria allegedly obtained by the original transferor of the property, let alone the fact that the conditions for acquiring title thereunder have been satisfied. Nowhere has it been shown that the informacion posesoria has been inscribed or registered in the registry of property and that the land has been under the actual and adverse possession of the private respondent for twenty years as required by the Spanish Mortgage Law. These matters are not presumed but must be established with definite proof, which is lacking in the present case.

13. Tax declarations are not sufficient to prove possession
Tax declarations are not sufficient to prove possession and much less vest ownership in favor of the declarant, as the Court has held in countless cases.


Creative Commons License
 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.