REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
MINDA DE PORKAN, SADIN MARAUG, GORGONIO BERMUDEZ, LOLITA
MACATINDOG, MEDORI DE PORKAN, JUAN ARANGALI, ANTONINA ESTARES,
REGISTER OF DEEDS and the IAC
G.R. No. L-66866
The family of Medori and Macampon de Porkan, both native Muslims of La Paz, Carmen, [formerly
Panabo] Davao del Norte, had been in actual possession as owner since the Spanish colonial period of
a tract of land planted with coconuts situated in said municipality. During the Survey, this tract of land
were respectively allocated to Medori and Macampon de Porkan, the predecessors-in-interest of herein
private respondents.
Said land was conveyed to Lolita Macatindog and Minda de Porkan by its Medori and Macampon.
They filed Free Patent Application on the subject land and Original Certificate of Title was issued to
them.
Meanwhile, Mrs. Viola C. Azurin, obtained from the then Philippine Fisheries Commission on
Ordinary Fishpond Permit covering the southern part of Lolita Macatindog and Minda de Porkans lot.
Viola Azurin had a conflict too with regards to the part of the land with Moonyeen R. Beleno who also
happened to cover the same fishpond as that of Azurin.
The Republic of the Philippines filed 2 separate complaints seeking the cancellation of Homestead
Patent de Porkan and Macatindog. The OSG claimed that the disputed portions of land could not
dispose of under the Public Land Act.
The Trial Court dismissed the cancellations sought by the OSG. The OSG thus elevated the case to this
Court by way of petition for review on certiorari raising eleven errors which, in its entirety, seeks to
cancel and declare as null and void the titles of private respondents.
CONTENTION OF REPUBLIC: State primarily rests on the contentions of the Solicitor General that
since the land are marshy and swampy, certified as such as more suitable for fishpond development,
disposable only thru lease under the Public Land. The Bureau of Lands, misled the Director of Lands
into erroneously approving private respondents' application and causing the fraudulent issuance of
patents in their favor by stating in his report that "there are no claimants" to the land applied for by
Minda de Porkan and that the land applied for by Lolita Macatindog "is claimed by nobody."
ISSUE: WON the Executive Secretary has the power to classify lands of public domain.
HELD: YES.
The investigation of Vicente J. Villena, junior public land inspector of the Bureau of Lands is binding
on the courts in as much as it is the exclusive prerogative of the Executive Department of the
Government to classify public lands . At the outset, it is significant to note that the tract of public
land then possessed, occupied, developed and planted to coconuts by the family of de Porkan and his
predecessors-in-interest, which, by virtue of its being part of the unregistered lands, was included in
the Survey and formed part of the disposable or alienable agricultural lands of the public domain
referred to Public Land Act, C.A. 141, as amended. The nature and character of said tract of public
land, as one found inside an "agricultural zone", suitable for rice cultivation, which were categorically
stated in report investigation of Bureau of Lands. The classification is descriptive of its legal nature or
status and does not have to be descriptive of what the land actually looks like. This Court, speaking
thru Justice Moir, in the case of Jocson vs. Director of Forestry, traced the meaning of public
agricultural lands, and the same was restated 29 years later in Krivenko vs. Register of Deeds that the
phrase 'agricultural lands' as used in Act No. 926 means those public lands acquired from Spain which
are not timber or mineral. Whatever may have been the meaning of the term 'forestry' under the
Spanish law, the Act of Congress of July 1st, 1902, classifies the public lands in the Philippine Islands
as timber, mineral or agricultural lands, and all public lands that are not timber or mineral lands are
necessarily agricultural public lands, whether they are used as nipa swamps, manglares, fisheries or
ordinary farm lands. [Emphasis supplied.
In that sense, there is then no legal obstacle for Lolita de Porkan Macatindog and Minda de Porkan to
complete the imperfect or incomplete title of her predecessor-in-interest over the lot by means of
confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title by administrative legalization [free patent] under the
Public Land Act. In both parcels of land, the application for confirmation is a mere formality, the lack
of which does not affect the legal sufficiency of the title as would be evidenced by the patent and the
Torrens Title to be issued upon the strength of said patent.
There is therefore no equitable justification for the Director of Lands to divest private respondents of
their titles by claiming, after 19 years, that the lots in question remain public lands because the same
are swampy and marshy in nature subject to lease only under the Public Land Act.
1
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, land of the public domain. A proposal cannot take the place of a formal act declaring forest land
vs. released for disposition as public agricultural land. To sustain the appellate ruling would be to pre-
THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ESTEBAN MENDOZA and LEON PASAHOL empt the executive branch of the government from exercising its prerogative in classifying lands of the
G.R. No. 71285 November 5, 1987 public domain.

On December 18, 1968, a petition was filed by Esteban Mendoza and Leon Pasahol with the
then Court of First Instance, alleging ownership of the land in question (Lot 444) by purchase
from its original owners and thereafter, actual, continuous, public and adverse possession by
them tacked on to their predecessors-in-interest for a period exceeding 30 years.
Petitioners' predecessors-in-interest failed to answer in the cadastral court for lack of
knowledge of the existence of an ongoing cadastral proceeding because of which Lot No. 444
was declared public land.
Basic petition reopens cadastral proceedings insofar as this lot is concerned and prays for
issuance of a decree/title in petitioners' name.
Solicitor General opposed the petition of reopening of cadastral proceedings and points out
that reopening is allowable "only with respect to such of said parcels of land as have not been
alienated, reserved, leased, granted, or otherwise provisionally or permanently disposed of by
the Government." Applying said provision to the lot in question, it is claimed that registration
is not possible as said land is actually already forest land and/or part of a military reservation.
The lower court ruled in favor of Mendoza and Pasahol.
CONTENTION OF REPUBLIC: Republic maintains that the report of the District Forester
recommending the approval of the private respondents' petition is a mere proposal, which has not yet
been approved by the President of the Philippines; and that unless the President upon the
recommendation of the Minister (Secretary) of Natural Resources, reclassifies and declares a particular
land as agricultural or disposable, its status as military reservation or forest land remains unaltered and
no amount of physical occupation and cultivation thereof can change it to agricultural land and bring it
within the provisions of the Public Land Act.

ISSUE: WON the lower court erred in declaring that the subject land is alienable and disposable.

HELD: NO.
While it may be true that as ruled by the appellate court, the private respondents could tack their
possession of the land to that of their predecessors-in-interest as a result of which they now have more
than thirty (30) years' possession of the same, the fact remains that the subject land has not yet been
released from its classification as part of the military reservation zone and still has to be reclassified as
alienable public land with the approval of the President of the Philippines as required by the Public
Land Act (Commonwealth Act No. 141)

We, therefore, cannot sustain the appellate court's ruling that the land in dispute is no longer part of the
military reservation on the basis of a mere proposal to classify the same as alienable and disposable

2
DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND DIRECTOR OF FOREST DEVELOPMENT The burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of state ownership of the lands of the public
vs. domain is on the person applying for registration that the land subject of the application is alienable or
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND J. ANTONIO ARANETA disposable.

G.R. No. 73246 March 2, 1993
Pacific Farms, Inc. which later on change its applicant to Antonio Araneta, applied for
registration of the land which is actually an island known as Tambac Island in Lingayen Gulf
at Pangasinan, the area consists of 187,288 sqm, more or less.
The Republic of the Philippines, 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 thirty (30) years immediately preceding the filing of application.
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.
The trial court rendered a decision adjudicating the subject property to J. Antonio Araneta.
Hence this appeal.
ARANETAS CONTENTION: Respondent asserts that the reports of the District Land Officer
Perfecto Daroy and Supervising Land Examiner Teodoro P. Nieva show that the subject property is an
unclassified public land, not forest land.
The report of Supervising Land Examiner Nieva specifically states that the "land is within the
unclassified forest land" under the administrative jurisdiction of the then Bureau of Forest
Development. This was based on the reports of Land Inspector Daroy and District Land Officer
Feliciano Liggayu.
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.
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. We reiterate that 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

ISSUE: WON the land is classified by the mere report of District land Officer.

HELD: NO.

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 Commonwealth Act No. 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. In the absence of
such classification, the land remains as unclassified land until released therefrom and rendered open to
disposition. Courts have no authority to do so.

This is in consonance with the Regalian doctrine that all lands of the public domain belong to the State.
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.

3
COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 141* - AN ACT TO AMEND AND COMPILE THE LAWS
RELATIVE TO LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
Section 1. The short title of this Act shall be "The Public Land Act.
Section2. The provisions of this Act shall apply to the lands of the public domain; but timber and
mineral lands shall be governed by special laws and nothing in this Act provided shall be understood
or construed to change or modify the administration and disposition of the lands commonly called
"friar lands'' and those which, being privately owned, have reverted to or become the property of the
Commonwealth of the Philippines, which administration and disposition shall be governed by the laws
at present in force or which may hereafter be enacted.
Section3. The Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce shall be the executive officer charged with
carrying out the provisions of this Act through the Director of Lands, who shall act under his
immediate control.
Section4. Subject to said control, the Director of Lands shall have direct executive control of the
survey, classification, lease, sale or any other form of concession or disposition and management of the
lands of the public domain, and his decisions as to questions of fact shall be conclusive when approved
by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce.
Section5. The Director of Lands, with the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce shall
prepare and issue such forms, instructions, rules, and regulations consistent with this Act, as may be
necessary and proper to carry into effect the provisions thereof and for the conduct of proceedings
arising under such provisions.
CHAPTER II
CLASSIFICATION, DELIMITATION, AND SURVEY OF LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN,
FOR THE CONCESSION THEREOF
Section6. The President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce,
shall from time to time classify the lands of the public domain into
(a) Alienable or disposable;
(b) Timber, and
(c) Mineral lands,
and may at any time and in a like manner transfer such lands from one class to another, for the
purposes of their administration and disposition.
Section7. For the purposes of the administration and disposition of alienable or disposable public
lands, the President, upon recommendation by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, shall from
time to time declare what lands are open to disposition or concession under this Act.
Section8. Only those lands shall be declared open to disposition or concession which have been
officially delimited and classified and, when practicable, surveyed, and which have not been reserved
for public or quasi-public uses, nor appropriated by the Government, nor in any manner become
private property, nor those on which a private right authorized and recognized by this Act or any other
valid law may be claimed, or which, having been reserved or appropriated, have ceased to be so
However, the President may, for reasons of public interest, declare lands of the public domain open to
disposition before the same have had their boundaries established or been surveyed, or may, for the
same reason, suspend their concession or disposition until they are again declared open to concession
or disposition by proclamation duly published or by Act of the National Assembly.
Section9. For the purpose of their administration and disposition, the lands of the public domain
alienable or open to disposition shall be classified, according to the use or purposes to which such
lands are destined, as follows:
(a) Agricultural
(b) Residential commercial industrial or for similar productive purposes
(c) Educational, charitable, or other similar purposes
(d) Reservations for town sites and for public and quasi-public uses.
The President, upon recommendation by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, shall from time
to time make the classifications provided for in this section, and may, at any time and in a similar
manner, transfer lands from one class to another.
Section10. The words "alienation, "'disposition, or "concession" as used in this Act, shall mean any of
the methods authorized by this Act for the acquisition, lease, use, or benefit of the lands of the public
domain other than timber or mineral lands.
4
PEDRO LEE HONG HOK, SIMEON LEE HONG HOK, ROSITA LEE HONG HOK and LEONCIO it is raised by the government and set aside, the defendant cannot question it. The legality of the grant
LEE HONG HOK is a question between the grantee and the government." The above citation was repeated ipsissimis
vs. verbis in Salazar v. Court of Appeals. Bereft as petitioners were of the right of ownership in
ANIANO DAVID, THE HON. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, accordance with the findings of the Court of Appeals, they cannot, in the language of Reyes v.
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS and COURT OF APPEALS Rodriguez, "question the title legally issued."

G.R. No. L-30389 December 27, 1972

Since the filing of the sales application of Aniano David up to the actual issuance of the sales
patent in his favor, the plaintiffs-appellants did not put up any opposition or adverse claim
thereto.
After the registration and issuance of the certificate and duplicate certificate of title based on a
public land patent, the land covered thereby automatically comes under the operation of
Republic Act 496 subject to all the safeguards provided therein.... ny question concerning the
validity of the certificate of title based on fraud should be raised within one year from the date
of the issuance of the patent. Thereafter the certificate of title based thereon becomes
indefeasible
In this case the land in question is not a private property as the Director of Lands and the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources have always sustained the public character
thereof for having been formed by reclamation.
The only remedy therefore, available to the appellants is an action for reconveyance on the
ground of fraud. In this case we do not see any fraud committed by defendant-appellant
Aniano David in applying for the purchase of the land involved through his Miscellaneous
Sales Application, entered in the records of the Bureau of Lands because everything was done
in the open.
The notices regarding the auction sale of the land were published, the actual sale and award
thereof to Aniano David were not clandestine but open and public official acts of an officer of
the Government. The application was merely a renewal of his deceased wife's application, and
the said deceased occupied the land since 1938.
The court granting on the application of David, Lee Hong Kok bring an action to cancel a
void certificate of title issued pursuant to a void patent.

ISSUE: WON Lee Hong Kok may bring an action to cancel the certificate of title of David.

HELD: NO.

It is a restatement of a principle that dates back to Maninang v. Consolacion, 6 a 1908 decision. As was
there categorically stated: "The fact that the grant was made by the government is undisputed. Whether
the grant was in conformity with the law or not is a question which the government may raise, but until

5
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 892 February 16, 1976
DISCONTINUANCE OF THE SPANISH MORTGAGE SYSTEM OF REGISTRATION AND OF
THE USE OF SPANISH TITLES AS EVIDENCE IN LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the
powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby decree and order;
Section 1. The system of registration under the Spanish Mortgage Law is discontinued, and all lands
recorded under said system which are not yet covered by Torrens title shall be considered as
unregistered lands.
All holders of Spanish titles or grants should apply for registration of their lands under Act No. 496,
otherwise known as the Land Registration Act, within six (6) months from the effectivity of this
decree. Thereafter, Spanish titles cannot be used as evidence of land ownership in any registration
proceedings under the Torrens system.
Hereafter, all instruments affecting lands originally registered under the Spanish Mortgage Law may
be recorded under Section 194 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Act 3344;
Section 2. All laws, executive orders, administrative orders, rules and regulations inconsistent with the
foregoing provisions are hereby repealed or accordingly modified;
Section 3. This Decree shall take effect immediately.
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1529
AMENDING AND CODIFYING THE LAWS RELATIVE TO REGISTRATION OF PROPERTY
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
WHEREAS, there is a need to update the Land Registration Act and to
ORIGINAL REGISTRATION
I
ORDINARY REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS
A. APPLICATIONS
Section 14. Who may apply. The following persons may file in the proper Court of First Instance an
application for registration of title to land, whether personally or through their duly authorized
representatives:
(1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public
domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
(2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under the provision of existing
laws.
(3) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or abandoned river beds by right of accession
or accretion under the existing laws.
(4) Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner provided for by law.
Where the land is owned in common, all the co-owners shall file the application jointly.
Where the land has been sold under pacto de retro, the vendor a retro may file an application for the
original registration of the land, provided, however, that should the period for redemption expire
during the pendency of the registration proceedings and ownership to the property consolidated in the
vendee a retro, the latter shall be substituted for the applicant and may continue the proceedings.
A trustee on behalf of his principal may apply for original registration of any land held in trust by him,
unless prohibited by the instrument creating the trust.
6
7