REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND THE DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. FRANCISCO MA. CHANCO, AS JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BAGUIO & …

Republic versus Chancо

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought before the Supreme Court by the Republic of the Philippines, the Director of Lands, and the Director of Forestry against Judge Francisco Ma. Chanco of the Court of First Instance of Baguio and Benguet, and against the private applicant Mariano Pucay. The Republic asks the Court to set aside a lower court decision that approved, in part, an application for land registration over lots situated inside the Sto. Tomas Forest Reservation. The case matters because it fixes the rule on how a forest reservation proclaimed by the President interacts with private rights: the reservation does not wipe out rights already vested, but it bars the acquisition of new ones, and the applicant must show that his right was already complete on the very date of the proclamation.

Procedural History

Mariano Pucay filed an application for registration of five lots in the Court of First Instance of Baguio and Benguet. The Directors of the Bureaus of Lands and Forestry opposed it, on the ground that the land formed part of the public land or lay within the Sto. Tomas Forestry Reservation. After trial, the lower court, through Judge Chanco, rendered a decision approving the application to the extent of ten hectares, to be ascertained by the parties through the intervention of the court. The Republic, the Director of Lands, and the Director of Forestry then came to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari, seeking review of that decision and asking for a writ of preliminary injunction against acts of possession, donation, occupation, or disposition of the property pending the case. The petition's main thrust was that the lower court erred in ruling that the applicant had a registerable title over parcels admittedly within a forest reservation, except for a small area.

Facts

Mariano Pucay applied to register five semi-contiguous lots in Tuba, Benguet, with an aggregate area of 184,158 square meters. He traced his right over the first four lots to purchase and over the fifth lot to inheritance from his parents. The sellers of the first four lots testified that the major portion of the land had been owned by them long before the last war, that the applicant's family had previously rented it from them to pasture animals, and that the applicant ultimately bought the property from them in 1961. They testified that they had planted vegetables and fruit trees and pastured animals on the land, and that the Bureau of Forestry officials had never tried to evict them.

The lots were found to lie within the Sto. Tomas Forest Reserve, except for a small portion of Lot 5. The reservation had been established through Proclamation No. 581 dated July 8, 1940, issued by President Manuel L. Quezon to preserve the forest and enhance its value, materially and aesthetically. The proclamation itself respected private rights. The applicant's evidence showed that he and his predecessors had stayed on the property for more than thirty years in the concept of an owner and had improved it considerably.

The trial court, however, observed that the area now applied for was not commensurate with the original area held by the predecessors, especially the Paus family. Although the Paus possession could be reckoned as far back as 1923 through Tax Declaration No. 173, most of the tax declarations supporting the claim for the whole area were of recent vintage, as late as the 1960s, and the area had expanded progressively until the application was filed. After an ocular inspection, the trial court held it fair and equitable to declare that the applicant was entitled to registration of only ten hectares.

Issues

• Whether or not the lower court erred in ruling that the applicant had a registerable title over parcels of land admittedly within a forest reservation, except for a small area.
• Whether or not the applicant may register even the ten hectare portion found by the trial court, given that the land lies within the Sto. Tomas Forest Reservation.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Article Thirteen of the 1935 Constitution, as cited in the decision, provides:

All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and all other natural resources are owned by the State.

This is the constitutional anchor of the ruling that forest lands are inalienable and cannot be the object of a private registration.

Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act 141, before its present amendment, as cited in the decision, provides:

Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, for at least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter.

This is the statutory basis of the applicant's claim of thirty years of possession, and the Court measures that possession against the date of the proclamation.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the lots applied for are within the Sto. Tomas Forest Reservation, except for a small portion of Lot 5, and that such lots are not susceptible of registration because they are part of a forest reservation, which is inalienable even by the State. The proclamation's clause respecting private rights must be interpreted to mean private rights acquired before the issuance of the proclamation.

On the second issue, the Court held that it could not approve the registration even of the ten hectare portion awarded by the lower court. The records showed that the applicant or his predecessor-in-interest possessed only a small portion of the property since 1923, as shown by Tax Declaration No. 173, which the trial court found upon ocular inspection to be approximately ten hectares, while the remaining area claimed was progressively increased thereafter, as shown by tax declarations of recent vintage as late as 1960. The Court stated the governing standard:

What is required under Proclamation No. 581 is that on July 8, 1940, the date of said proclamation, the applicant must have acquired a private right to the property. This simply means that private respondent and/or his predecessor-in-interest should have been in uninterrupted possession of the property as owners thereof for a period of thirty years on the date of the said proclamation.

Since the applicant failed to establish any vested right to the lots upon the proclamation of the forest reserve, the Court modified the decision and awarded only the small portion of Lot 5 that is not covered by the reservation.

Doctrine

Forest reservations proclaimed by the President are inalienable and cannot be the subject of land registration, even by the State. The clause in a proclamation respecting private rights preserves only rights already acquired before the proclamation; it does not open the reservation to new claims. To register land within a reservation, the applicant must show that he or his predecessor-in-interest was in uninterrupted possession as owner for thirty years on the date of the proclamation, not merely thirty years before the filing of the application. Possession that expands progressively, evidenced by tax declarations of recent vintage, cannot support registration of the expanded area.

Disposition

The petition was granted in effect: the decision of the lower court was modified, and the applicant was awarded only the small portion of Lot 5 not covered by the Sto. Tomas Forest Reserve, to be determined and ascertained by the parties subject to the approval of the trial court, with no costs.

Remember This

The line to memorize is that private rights respected by a forest proclamation are only those already vested on the date of the proclamation, so the thirty year possession must be counted to that date. Examiners use this case to test the inalienability of forest reservations and the cut-off rule for possession under the old Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act 141.