DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND DIRECTOR OF FOREST DEVELOPMENT, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND ANTONIO VALERIANO, GABRIELA VALERIANO VDA. DE LA CRUZ, LETICIA A. VALERIANO AND …

Petitioners-public officials, through the Solicitor General, seek a
review of the Decision and Resolution of the then Court of Appeals
affirming the judgment of the former Court of First Instance of Bulacan,
Branch III, decreeing registration of a parcel of land in private
respondents’ favor. The land in question, identified as Lot 2347,
Cad-302-D, Case 3, Obando Cadastre, under Plan Ap-03-000535, is situated
in Obando, Bulacan, and has an area of approximately 9.3 hectares. It
adjoins the Kailogan River and private respondents have converted it
into a fishpond.

In their application for registration filed on May 10, 1976, private
respondents (Applicants, for brevity) claimed that they are the
co-owners in fee simple of the land applied for partly through
inheritance in 1918 and partly by purchase on May 2, 1958; that it is
not within any forest zone or military reservation; and that the same is
assessed for taxation purposes in their names.

The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Director of the
Bureau of Forest Development opposed the application on the principal
ground that the land applied for is within the unclassified region of
Obando, Bulacan, per BF Map LC No. 637 dated March 1, 1927; and that
areas within the unclassified region are denominated as forest lands and
do not form part of the disposable and alienable portion of the public
domain.

After hearing, the Trial Court ordered registration of the subject land
in favor of the Applicants. This was affirmed on appeal by respondent
Appellate Court, which found that “through indubitable evidence
(Applicants) and their predecessors-in-interest have been in open,
public, continuous, peaceful and adverse possession of the subject
parcel of land under a bona fide claim of ownership for more than 30
years prior to the filing of the application” and are, therefore,
entitled to registration. It further opined that “since the subject
property is entirely devoted to fishpond purposes, it cannot be
categorized as part of forest lands.”

Before this instance, the principal issues posed are: (1) whether or not
Courts can reclassify the subject public land; and (2) whether or not
applicants are entitled to judicial confirmation of title.

The parties, through their respective counsel, stipulated that the land
is within an unclassified region of Obando, Bulacan, as shown by BF Map
LC No. 637, dated March 1, 1927.^[1]
No evidence has been submitted that the land has been released or
subsequently classified despite an Indorsement, dated November 17, 1976,
of the District Forester, to the Director of Forest Development,
containing the following recommendation:

“Subject area requested for release was verified and found to be
within the Unclassified Region of Obando, Bulacan per BF LC Map No. 637,
certified March 1, 1927. However, on-the-spot inspection conducted by a
representative of this Office, it disclosed that the same was devoid of
any forest growth and forms part of a well-developed and 100 percent
producing fishponds. Two houses of light materials were erected within
the area for the caretakers temporary dwelling.

“In view thereof, and in fairness to the applicant considering the
investment introduced therein this Office believes that the release is
in order.

“Recommended for approval and be disposed of in accordance with the Public Land Law.”^[2]

The Government’s cause is meritorious.

In effect, what the Courts a quo have done is to 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 as unclassified and until it is released therefrom and rendered
open to disposition.^[3] This
should be so under time-honored Constitutional precepts. This is also in
consonance with the Regalian doctrine that all lands of the public
domain belong to the State^[4] ,
and that the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership in
land and charged with the conservation of such patrimony.^[5]

The recommendation of the District Forester for release of subject
property from the unclassified region is not the ultimate word on the
matter. And the fact that BF Map LC No. 637 dated March 1, 1927 showing
subject property to be within the unclassified region was not presented
in evidence will not operate against the State considering the
stipulation between the parties and under the well-settled rule that the
State cannot be estopped by the omission, mistake or error of its
officials or agents^[6] , if omission there was, in fact.

While it may be that the Municipality of Obando has been cadastrally
surveyed in 1961, it does not follow that all lands comprised therein
are automatically released as alienable. A survey made in a cadastral
proceeding merely identifies each lot preparatory to a judicial
proceeding for adjudication of title to any of the lands upon claim of
interested parties. Besides, if land is within the jurisdiction of the
Bureau of Forest Development, it would be beyond the jurisdiction of the
Cadastral Court to register it under the Torrens System.

Since the subject property is still unclassified, whatever possession
Applicants may have had, and, however long, cannot ripen into private
ownership.^[7]

The conversion of subject property into a fishpond by Applicants, or the
alleged titling of properties around it, does not automatically render
the property as alienable and disposable. Applicants’ remedy lies in the
release, of the property from its present classification. In fairness
to Applicants, and it appearing that there are titled lands around the
subject property, petitioners-officials should give serious
consideration to the matter of classification of the land in question.

WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is reversed and the application for
registration in Land Registration Case No. N-299-V-76 of the former
Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Branch III, is hereby dismissed,
without prejudice to the availment by the applicants of the proper
administrative remedy. No costs.
SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Plana, Relova, and De la Fuente, JJ., concur.

Gutierrez, Jr., J., took no part. He was the Acting Solicitor General when the Opposition of the Republic was filed before the lower Court.

---

^[1] T.s.n., January 7, 1977, p. 2.

^[2] Original Record, p. 53.

^[3] Sec. 8, Commonwealth Act
No. 141, as amended; vide Yngson vs. Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources, 123 SCRA 441 (1983); Republic vs. Court of Appeals,
99 SCRA 742 (1980).

^[4] Secs. 8 & 10, Art. XIV, 1973 Constitution.

^[5] Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 89 SCRA 648 (1979).

^[6] Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 89 SCRA 648 (1979).

^[7] Adorable vs. Director of
Lands, 107 Phil. 401; Director of Forestry vs. Munoz, 23 SCRA 1184-1216
(1968); Director of Lands vs. Abanzado, 65 SCRA 5 (1975); Republic vs.
Court of Appeals, 89 SCRA 648, 656 (1979).