Haystack: Director of Lands v. Intermediate Appellate Court (GR 73246, 2 March 1993)

Director of Lands v. IAC
[G.R. No. 73246. March 2, 1993.]
Second Division, Nocon (J): 4 concur

Facts: Land involved is an island known as Tambac Island in Lingayen Gulf. Situated in the Municipality of Bani, Pangasinan, the area consists of 187,288 sq. m., more or less. The initial application for registration was filed for Pacific Farms, Inc. under the provisions of the Land Registration Act, Act 496, as amended. The Republic of the Philippines, thru the Director of Lands opposed the application alleging that the applicant, Pacific Farms, Inc. does not possess a fee simple title to the land nor did its predecessors possess the land for at least 30 years immediately preceding the filing of application. The opposition likewise specifically alleged that the applicant is a private corporation disqualified under the 1973 Constitution from acquiring alienable lands of the public domain citing Section 11, Article 14. The Director of Forest Development also entered its opposition alleging that the land is within the unclassified public land and, hence, inalienable. Other private parties also filed their oppositions, but were subsequently withdrawn. In an amended application, Pacific Farms, Inc. filed a manifestation-motion to change the applicant from Pacific Farms, Inc. to J. Antonio Araneta. Despite the supposed amendment, there was no republication. On 4 October 1979, the trial court rendered a decision adjudicating the subject property to J. Antonio Araneta. On appeal to the then Intermediate Appellate Court, the decision of the lower court was affirmed on 12 December 1985. Hence, the petition for review.

The Supreme Court granted the petition, and reversed the decisions of the courts a quo.

1. Submission of tracing cloth mandatory in registration; Failure to submit original tracing cloth as evidence fatal
In Director of Lands v. The Honorable Intermediate Appellate Court and Lino Anit, it was ruled that the submission of the tracing cloth plan is a mandatory requirement for registration. In Director of Lands v. Reyes, on the other hand, it was held that failure to submit in evidence the original tracing cloth plan is fatal it being a statutory requirement of mandatory character. It is of no import that the Director of Lands failed to object to the presentation of the certified copy of the said plan. What is required is the original tracing cloth plan of the land applied for and objection to such requirement cannot be waived either expressly or impliedly. As held in Director of Lands v. Reyes, if the original tracing cloth plan was indeed with the Land Registration Commission, there is no reason why the applicant cannot easily retrieve the same and submit it in evidence, it being an essential requirement for registration.

2. Amendment o the name of applicant an attempt to evade disqualification
The amendment of the application from the name of Pacific Farms, Inc., as applicant, to the name of J. Antonio Araneta, was a mere attempt to evade disqualification. The Constitution, whether the 1973 or 1987, prohibits private corporations or associations from holding alienable lands of the public domain except by lease. Apparently realizing such prohibition, applicant amended its application to conform with the mandates of the law.

3. Requirement of republication due to amendments to the application
Amendments to the application may be due to change in parties or substantial change in the boundaries or increase in the area of the land applied for. As to amendments to the application due to change in parties, neither the Land Registration Act, as amended, nor PD 1529 (the Property Registration Decree_, requires republication and registration may be allowed by the court at any stage of the proceeding upon just and reasonable terms. On the other hand, republication is required if the amendment is due to substantial change in the boundaries or increase in the area of the land applied for.

4. PD 1529 applied properly in the present case
There is no relevant dispute in the lower court's application of PD 1529, instead of Act 496, in adjudicating the land to the then applicant, assuming that the land involved is registrable. Both laws are existing and can stand together. PD 1529 was enacted to codify the various laws relative to registration of property, in order to facilitate effective implementation of said laws.

5. Classification of lands of the public domain
Lands of the public domain are classified under three main categories, namely: Mineral, Forest and Disposable or Alienable Lands. Under the Commonwealth Constitution, only agricultural lands were allowed to be alienated. Their disposition was provided for under CA 141 (Secs. 6-7), which states that it is only the President, upon the recommendation of the proper department head, who has the authority to classify the lands of the public domain into alienable or disposable, timber and mineral lands. Mineral and Timber or forest lands are not subject to private ownership unless they are first reclassified as agricultural lands and so released for alienation.

6. Courts have no authority to classify unclassified land; Regalian Doctrine
The courts cannot release the subject property from the unclassified category, which is beyond their competence and jurisdiction. The classification of public lands is an exclusive prerogative of the Executive Department of the Government and not of the Courts. In the absence of such classification, the land remains unclassified until released therefrom and rendered open to disposition. This is in consonance with the Regalian doctrine that all lands of the public domain belong to the State, and that the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership in land and charged with the conservation of such patrimony. Under the Regalian Doctrine, all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Hence, a positive act of the government is needed to declassify a forest land into alienable or disposable land for agricultural or other purposes.

7. Burden of proof in proving the land is alienable or disposable
The burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of state ownership of the lands of the public domain is on the person applying for registration that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable. Unless the applicant succeeds in showing by convincing evidence that the property involved was acquired by him or his ancestors either by composition title from the Spanish Government or by possessory information title, or any other means for the proper acquisition of public lands, the property must be held to be part of the public domain. The applicant must present evidence and persuasive proof to substantiate his claim.

8. Tax declarations and receipts not conclusive evidence of ownership
Tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership or of the right to possess land when not supported by evidence. The fact that the disputed property may have been declared for taxation purposes in the names of the applicants or of their predecessors-in-interest way back in 1921 does not necessarily prove ownership. They are merely indicia of a claim of ownership.

9. State cannot be estopped by omission, mistake or error of its officials
In Director of Lands v. CA, it was held that it is a well-settled rule that the State cannot be estopped by the omission, mistake or error of its officials or agents, if omission there was, in fact. Thus, the fact that BF Map LC 673 dated 1 March 1927, in that case, showing subject property to be within unclassified region was not presented in evidence will not operate against the State. Likewise, in the present case, the contention that the BFD, LC Map No. 681, certified on August 8, 1927 which was the basis of the report and recommendation of the Land Examiner, is too antiquated; that it cannot be conclusively relied upon and was not even presented in evidence, cannot be well taken.

10. Unclassified property; possession cannot ripen into private ownership
Since the subject property is still unclassified, whatever possession the applicant may have had and however long, cannot ripen into private ownership. The conversion of subject property does not automatically render the property as alienable and disposable.

11. Government called upon to classify the land
The Government should seriously consider the matter of the reclassification of the land in question. The attempt of people to have disposable lands they have been tilling for generations titled in their name should not only be viewed with understanding attitude, but as a matter of policy encouraged.

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