REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF FOREST DEVELOPMENT AND THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, AND MARTINA CARANTES FO…

This is a petition for review on certiorari to set aside
the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming
in toto the judgment of the Court of
First Instance of Baguio and Benguet,
Branch III, at La Trinidad in LRC Case No. N-287, Record No. 37205, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

“It having been proven convincingly that this land was owned
and possessed by the late Salming Piraso
and later by his
successors-in-interest, who are his children for a period of more than thirty
years up to this date, they have
shown to have a registerable title on the property
which this Court therefore confirms and affirms in accordance with the
law.  Let the land so described in the technical description of the
survey made of the same and in accordance with the corresponding plan
be so registered.” (p. 50, Rollo)

On May 9, 1968,
respondent Martina S. Carantes for and in behalf of the Heirs of Salming Piraso filed with the
Court of First Instance of Baguio and Benguet, Land Registration
Case No. N-287, covering the following described
property:

“A parcel of land (as shown on plan PSU-
43639) situated in the Barrio of Ansagan, Municipality
of Tuba, Mountain Province.  Bounded in the NE., along line 1-2 by
property of Sioco Carino
(PSU-43643, Lot 1); on the  SE., and 
SW., along lines 2-3-4-5 by public land, on the W., alone lines 5-6-1 by property of Tunccalo.  Containing an area of TWO MILLION
ONE HUNDRED NINETY SEVEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND SEVENTY NINE (2,197,879)
SQUARE METERS.  x x x.” (p. 13, Rollo)

On January 13, 1970,
the Director of Lands, through the Solicitor General, filed an opposition to
the application for registration stating, among others:

“That neither the applicant nor her predecessors-in-interest
possess sufficient title to said parcel of land the same not having been
acquired by them either by composition title from the Spanish Government or by possessory information title under the Royal Decree of
February 13, 1894;

“That neither the applicant nor her predecessors-in-interest
have been in open, continuous, exclusive, notorious possession and occupation
of the land in question for at least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the
present application;

“That the aforementioned parcel of land is a portion of the
public domain belonging to the Republic of the Philippines.”
(pp. 13-14, Rollo)

On April 7, 1970,
the Director of Forestry also filed an
opposition to the application for registration on the following grounds:

“That the whole area applied for registration is within the Central
Cordillera Forest Reserve established under Proclamation No. 217, dated February 16, 1929;

“That the area sought to be registered is neither released for disposition
nor alienation; and that the herein applicant has no registerable
title over the whole parcel of land either in fact or in law.” (p. 14, Rollo)

After trial, a decision was rendered by the land registration court, as earlier stated, adjudicating the parcel of land
to the applicants.  The motion for reconsideration filed by Government oppositors having been denied, an appeal was made to the
Court of Appeals which affirmed in
toto
the decision of the land registration court.

In  this petition, the
petitioner assigns the following alleges errors of the Court of Appeals:

A.   RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION IS NOT CAPABLE OF
REGISTRATION BEING PART OF THE PUBLIC FORESTS WITHIN THE CENTRAL CORDILLERA
FOREST RESERVE;

B.   RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE ALLEGED
POSSESSION OF THE LAND BY PRIVATE RESPONDENTS AND THEIR PREDECESSORS-IN-INTEREST
WAS NOT IN CONCEPT OF OWNER UNDER SECTION 48 OF THE PUBLIC LAND LAW, THE LAND
BEING INALIENABLE;

C.   RESPONDENT COURT
ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE LAND IS AGRICULTURAL BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO
SUBMIT PROOF THAT THE LAND IS MORE VALUABLE FOR FOREST
PURPOSES;

D.   RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE
PROPERTY BECAME SEGREGATED FROM THE LAND OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND ASSUMED THE
CHARACTER OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP UPON APPROVAL OF ITS SURVEY PLAN BY THE DIRECTOR
OF LAND IN 1925;

E.   ASSUMING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS HAD
POSSESSED AND CULTIVATED 10 TO 15 HECTARES OF THE LAND APPLIED FOR, RESPONDENT
COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT THEY HAD ACQUIRED
OWNERSHIP THRU CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OVER THE REST OF THE 219.7879 HECTARES
APPLIED FOR.  (p. 18, Rollo)

The issues raised are:

1.  Whether or not the land in question is part of
the public forest within the Central
Cordillera Forest Reserve; and

2.  Whether
or not private respondents have
established registerable title over the land in
question.

It is the stand of the petitioner that the land in question
covered by Plan Psu-43639 is part of the public forest within the Central
Cordillera Forest Reserve established under Proclamation No. 217 of Governor
General Henry Stimson dated February 16, 1929.  On February 27, 1980, an ocular inspection of said property was made by Land Inspector Crisogono Bartolo, Jr., of the
Bureau of Lands together with representatives of the Bureau of Forestry, the Land Registration Court, and the applicants for registration.  During the ocular inspection, the land was
found to be rolling and stony in nature. 
Dartolo, Jr., submitted a report on April 17, 1970, stating, among others, that the land is covered with trees, bushes and grasses and being also stony
is not suitable for agricultural purposes.

The representative of the Bureau of Forestry, Forester Ricardo D.
Zapatero, submitted to the Provincial Fiscal a separate
report dated April 6, 1970
to the effect that the whole area falls within the Central Cordillera Forest Reserve and that the same has not been released
for agricultural purposes by the Director of Forestry who had administrative
jurisdiction over the same.

The petitioner states that since the land in question is
indubitably part of the public forest and has not been reclassified or released
from the forest zone, the same
can not be the subject of registration either under Act 496, otherwise known as
the Land Registration Act, or under Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141,
otherwise known as the Public Land Act. 
The petitioner points out that lands within the forest zone or within a
duly established reservation do not form part of the disposable portion of the
public domain nor can the same be alienated as said lands are not capable of
private appropriation or ownership and possession
thereof, however long, cannot convert the same into private property.

It is further argued by the petitioner that the private
respondents or their predecessors-in-interest, Salming
Piraso, had not acquired ownership over the land
prior to its classification as part of the Cordillera Forest Reserve because
there is no evidence on record that Salming Piraso had possessed the property for any appreciable
period prior to 1929 when the land became part of the Cordillera Forest
Reserve.

On the other hand, the private respondents assert that the
findings of fact of the Court of Appeals show that the land subject of
application is not within the Central Cordillera Forest Reserve and the same
land applied for registration is disposable and alienable.  The private respondents, as applicants, claim
to have sufficiently shown by preponderance of evidence that the land being
applied for registration had been possessed by Salming Piraso as far back as 1915 when he and his workers planted the
arable portion of about 15 hectares to rice and other products and
raised cows on the other portion suited for pasture.  The late Salming Piraso had the land surveyed by private
surveyor Jose Castro on April 3-9, 1924 as Plan Psu-43639 which was
approved by the then Director of Lands, Jorge B. Vargas on March 6,
1925, while Proclamation No. 217 Was promulgated
only on February 16, 1929.  They state
that the approval of the said survey by the government thru the Director of
Lands Jorge B. Vargas can only mean that said land was no longer included in
the overall survey of the government as it was no longer part of the public
land.  As applicants, they contend that
they have possessed the land applied for in concept of owner, openly and
publicly, adverse against the whole world and continuously for more than thirty
(30) years before they filed
application over the land which is agricultural and separate from the public
domain.

We find the petition to be meritorious.  It is already a settled rule that forest
lands or forest reserves are not capable of private appropriation and
possession thereof, however long, cannot convert them into private property (Vano v. Government of Philippine Islands, 41 Phil. 161;
Adorable v. Director of Forestry, 107 Phil. 401; Director of Forestry v. Munoz,
23 SCRA 1183; Republic v. De la Cruz; 67 SCRA 221; Director of Lands v. Reyes
& Alinsunurin v. Director of Lands, 68 SCRA 177;
Republic v. Court of Appeals, 89 SCRA 648; and Director of Lands v. Court of
Appeals, 133 SCRA 701) unless
such lands are reclassified and considered disposable and alienable by the
Director of Forestry, but even then, possession
of the
land by the applicants prior to the reclassification of the land
as disposable and alienable cannot be
credited as part of the thirty-year requirement under Section 48 (b) of the
Public Land Act (Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals, supra).  In this case, there is
no showing of reclassification by the Director of Forestry that the land in question is disposable or
alienable.  This is a matter which cannot
be assumed.  It calls for proof.

There is an erroneous assumption implicit in the challenged
decision of the Court of Appeals which the government oppositors
also appear to have overlooked.  This is
the reliance on Proclamation No.  217 of Governor General Henry L. Stimson
as the operative act which converted the lands covered by the Central
Cordillera Forest Reserve into forest lands.  This is wrong.  The land was not non-forest or agricultural
land prior to the 1929
proclamation.  It did not earn a
classification from non-forest into forest land because of the proclamation.  The proclamation
merely declared a special forest reserve out of already existing forest lands.  The land was already forest or timber land
even before the proclamation.  The
alleged entry in 1915 of Salming Piraso
and the cultivation of 15 hectares out of a 219.7879 hectares claimed area has
no legal significance.  A person cannot
enter into forest land by the simple
act of cultivating portion of that
land, earn credits towards an eventual
confirmation of imperfect title.  The Government must first declare the
forest land to be alienable and disposable agricultural land before the year of
entry, cultivation, an exclusive
and adverse possession can be counted for purposes of an imperfect
title.

The records positively establish that the land in question is
part of the public forest which the Executive formally proclaimed as the Central Cordillera Forest
Reserve to further preserve its integrity and to give it a status which is more special for certain purposes than
that of ordinary forest lands.

One reason for the respondent court’s decision finding a registerable title for the private respondents is its
observation that the Government failed to show that the disputed land is more
valuable for forest purposes.  The court
noted a failure to prove that trees are thriving in the land.

The Court of Appeals finding
is based on a wrong concept what is
forest land.  There is a big difference between “forest”
as defined in a dictionary and “forest or timber land” as a
classification of lands of the public domain
in the Constitution.  (Section 3, Article XII of the 1987
Constitution; Section 10, Article XIV
of the 1973 Constitution, as amended; and Section 1, Article XIII of the 1935
Constitution).

One is descriptive
of what appears on the land while the other is a legal status, a classification
for legal purposes.

The “forest land” started out as a “forest”
or vast tracts of wooded land with dense growths of trees and underbush.  However, the cutting down of trees and the
disappearance of virgin forest did not
automatically convert the lands of the public domain from forest as timber land
to alienable agricultural land.

As stated by this Court
in Heirs of Amunatequi
v. Director of Forestry (126
SCRA 69, 75):

“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.  ‘Forest 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 title do not apply.

“This Court ruled in the leading case of Director of
Forestry v. Munoz
(23 SCRA 1184) that possession of forest lands, no matter how long, cannot
ripen into private ownership.  And in Republic v. Animas (56 SCRA 499), we granted the petition on the ground that the area
covered by the patent and title was not disposable public land, it being a part of the forest zone and any patent and title to said area is void ab initio.  It bears emphasizing that a positive act of Government is needed to declassify land which is
classified as forest and to convert it into alienable or disposable land for
agricultural or other purposes.” (at p. 75)

On February 27, 1970,
an ocular inspection of the questioned property was conducted by Land Inspector
Crisogono Bartolo, Jr., of the Bureau of Lands, together with Forester Ricardo D. Zapatero of the Bureau of Forestry, Deputy Clerk of Court Roberto Gogoling
as representative of the land registration court, Fiscal Navarro and Andres Carantes as representative
of the applicant.

Land Inspector Crisogono Bartolo, Jr., submitted his report dated April 17, 1970, which
states, among others, that the land
is covered with trees, bushes and
grasses and being stony is not suitable for agricultural purposes.  This negates the claim of the private
respondents that the land has been
cultivated
since 1915.

More important, however, than the appearance of the land is its status, as stated in
the separate report dated April 6, 1970 submitted
to the Provincial Fiscal of Benguet Province by
Forester Ricardo D. Zapatero which declares that the
whole area applied for by the applicant falls within the Central Cordillera
Forest Reserve and that the same has not been released for agricultural
purposes by the Director of Forestry who has administrative jurisdiction over the same.  This has not been successfully
refuted.  It has not been proved
erroneous.

Testifying in connection
with the matters stated in his report, Forester Ricardo D. Zapatero
stated that:

“Q   Do
you know the land in question
here in this case?

“A    I know sir.

“Q.  In connection with your duty to inspect the lands that are subject matters of land registration
cases, have you inspected this land in question also?

“A    Yes,
I inspected it, sir.

“Q   What is the purpose of your
inspection?

“A    The purpose of my inspection is to determine the status of the area if it
falls within the reservation, or within the alienable or disposable area.

“Q   What is your finding, if any?

“A    My finding was that the area
falls within the Central Cordillera
Forest Reserve.

“Q   Was
that finding reduced into writing?

“A    Yes, sir.

“Q   I am showing to you a report found on Pages Sixty-Eight (68) of the records which for purposes of
identification, we pray that the same
be marked as Exhibit “A” for
the government oppositors, your Honor.

“COURT:

As what?

“FISCAL BRAWNER:

Rather as Exhibit
“1”.

“COURT:

Have it marked.

“Q   What
is the relation of this report with that report that you made?

“A  
This is the original copy of the Report which I submitted to the
Provincial Fiscal.

“Q.  There
appears a signature above the typewritten name ‘Ricardo D. Zapatero‘,
whose signature is that?

“A    That is mine, sir.

“Q   You
stated that in paragraph 3 of your report, Exhibit 1 that the land falls within the Central Cordillera
Forest Reserve, how did you arrive
at that conclusion?

“A    Because of what I have seen of the improvements of the applicant and because of the
Bureau of Forestry map.

“Q.  Did you actually go to the land in ques­tion or the
land applied for?

“A    Yes,
sir

“Q   So,
you actually saw this land
applied for?

“A    Yes, sir.

“Q  
What is the nature of this
land applied for?

“A    It is generally stony and the topography is
level to rolling and there are certain
species of plants inside the land, in
some area.

“COURT:

“Q   What
are the species of plants?

“A    There
are species of Binayuyu.

“Q   That is for lumber?

“A     No, that is not.

“FISCAL BRAWNER:

“Q  You stated in paragraph 2 of your report that the topography of the
land applied for is generally stony, and because of the binayuyu
species, the condition of the land is not suited for agricultural purposes?

“A    Yes, sir.

“Q  
What is the basis of that
statement?

“A    Because of the topography which is of solid inclination, we believe that
is not good for agricultural
purposes.  The land applied for is more
suited for pasture purposes.” (pp. 203-206, tsn., September
6, 1971; Emphasis
supplied)

The reports and testimonies
of Land Inspector Bartolo
and Forester Zapatero support contention of the petitioner that the area applied for by the applicant is forest
land within Central Cordillera Forest Reserve. 
In the case of Ramos v. Director of Lands (39 Phil. 175) we
have stated:

“Great consideration, it may be stated should, and undoubtedly
will be, paid by the courts to the
opinion of the technical expert who speaks with authority on Forestry
matters.”

There is no
factual basis for the conclusion of the appellate court that the property in
question was no longer part of the public land when the Government through the
Director of Lands approved on March 6, 1925, the survey plan (Plan Psu-43639)
for Salming Piraso.   The existence of a sketch plan of real
property even if approved by the Bureau of Lands is no proof in itself of ownership of the land covered by the
plan.  (Gimeno v. Court of Appeals, 80 SCRA 623).  The fact that a claimant or a possessor has a
sketch plan or a survey map prepared for a parcel of land which forms part of the country’s forest reserves does not convert such land into alienable
land, much less private property. 
Assuming that a public officer erroneously approves the sketch plan,
such approval is null and void.  There
must first be a formal Government declaration that the forest land has been re-classified
into alienable and disposable agricultural land which may then be acquired by private persons in accordance with the various modes of
acquiring public agricultural lands.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED.  The decision of the Court of Appeals
affirming the decision of the land registration court which granted the private
respondents’ application for registration of the land in question is REVERSED
and SET ASIDE.  The application for land registration is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, (Chairman), Feliciano, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concur.