Sei sulla pagina 1di 2

DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner, vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, IBARRA BISNAR and


AMELIA BISNAR, respondents. G.R. No. 83609; October 26, 1989

Facts: On July 20,1976, Ibarra and Amelia Bisnar filed their joint application for the
registration of two parcels of land, located in the province of Capiz, in the CFI of Capiz.
They claimed that they inherited those parcels of land. The Director of Lands and Director
of the Bureau of Forest Development opposed the application on the ground that said
parcels of land were part of a timberland, a public dominion, so it cannot be the subject of
the registration proceedings. After the hearing, the CFI ordered the registration of the title
of the lots in the names of the applicants, herein private respondents after finding that the
applicants and their predecessors- in-interest have been in open, public, continuous,
peaceful and adverse possession of the subject parcels of land under bona fide claims of
ownership for more than 80 years. The CA affirmed the CFIs decision, holding that the
classification of the lots as timberland by the Director of Forestry cannot prevail in the
absence of proof that the said lots are indeed more valuable as forest land than as
agricultural land, citing as authority the case of Ankron vs. Government of the Philippine
Islands (40 Phil. 10).

Issue/s: Whether or not the possession of forestlands or timberlands for 80 years can
ripen to private ownership.

Ruling: No. The Court ruled that possession of forestlands, however long, cannot ripen
into private ownership. It emphasized that a positive act of the government, particularly
the Executive Department is needed to declassify land, which is classified as forest, and
to convert it into alienable or disposable land for agricultural or other purposes before
registration of which may proceed. The Court, citing various cases, stated that a parcel of
forestland is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bureau of Forestry, an office under the
Executive Department, and beyond the power and jurisdiction of the cadastral court to
register under the Torrens System. In the present case, the two parcels of land were not
declared by the Executive Department to be alienable and disposable, thus it cannot be
registered under private ownership.
Montano v. The Insular Government
ISABELO MONTANO Y MARCIAL vs. THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT, ET AL.

Facts: :
Isabelo Montano presented a petition to the Court of Land Registration for the inscription
of a piece of land in the barrio of Libis, municipality of Caloocan, used as a fishery having
a superficial area of 10,805 square meters, and bounded as set out in the petition; its
value according to the last assessment being $505.05, United States currency. This
petition was opposed by the Solicitor-General in behalf of the Director of Lands, and by
the entity known as Obras Pias de la Sagrada Mitra, the former on the ground that the
land in question belonged to the Government of the United States, and the latter, that it
was the absolute owner of all the dry land along the eastern boundary of the said fishery.

The Court of Land Registration in its decision of December 1, 1906, dismissed the said
oppositions without costs and decreed, after a general entry by default, the adjudication
and registration of the property described in the petition, in favor of Isabelo Montano y
Marcial. From this decision only counsel for the Director of Public Lands appealed to this
court. and precisely Isabelo Montano sought title thereon on the strength of 10 years'
occupation pursuant to paragraph 6, section 5 of Act 926 of the Philippine Commission

Issue:
Whether or not the land in question can be acquired by Montano

Held:
Accordingly, "government land" and "public domain" are not synonymous items. The first
includes not only the second, but also other lands of the Government already reserved or
devoted to public use or subject to private right. In other words, the Government owns
real estate which is part of the "public lands" and other real estate which is not part
thereof. Government property was of two kinds first, that of public use or service, said
to be of public ownership, and second, that of having a private character or use. (Civil
Code, arts. 339 and 340.) Lands of the first class, while they retain their public character
are inalienable. Those of the second are not. Therefore, there is much real property
belonging to the Government which is not affected by statutes for the settlement,
prescription or sale of public lands. Examples in point are properties occupied by public
buildings or devoted to municipal or other governmental uses.

It is settled that the general legislation of Congress in respect to public lands does not
extend to tide lands. It provided that the scrip might be located on the unoccupied and
unappropriated public lands. As said inNewhall vs. Sanger(92 U.S. 761, 763.) A
marshland which is inundated by the rise of tides belong to the State and is not
susceptible to appropriation by occupation, has no application in the present case
inasmuch as in said case the land subject matter of the litigation was not yet titled