Land Titles and Deeds Assigned Cases in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious

possession and occupation in Boracay since 1945

Module 2 or earlier since time immemorial.

THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT They further posited that the orders in question did
OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL not place Boracay beyond the commerce of man.
RESOURCES, THE REGIONAL Since the Island was classified as a tourist zone, it
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DENR-REGION was susceptible of private ownership.
VI, REGIONAL TECHNICAL DIRECTOR
FOR LANDS, LANDS MANAGEMENT The Republic, through the OSG maintained that
BUREAU, REGION VI PROVINCIAL respondents-claimants reliance on said orders were
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL misplaced and that their right to judicial
RESOURCES OFFICER OF KALIBO, confirmation of title was actually governed by CA
AKLAN, REGISTER OF DEEDS, DIRECTOR No. 141 and PD No. 705. Since Boracay Island
OF LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY, had not been classified as alienable and
DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM SECRETARY, disposable, whatever possession they had cannot
DIRECTOR OF PHILIPPINE TOURISM ripen into ownership.
AUTHORITY, petitioners, vs. MAYOR JOSE
S. YAP, LIBERTAD TALAPIAN, MILA Y. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of respondents-
SUMNDAD, and ANICETO YAP, in their claimants stating that neither Proclamation No
behalf and in behalf of all those similarly 1801 nor PTA Circular No. 3-82 mentioned that
situated, respondents, GR No 167707, October lands in Boracay were inalienable or could not the
8, 2008 subject of disposition. The Circular itself
recognized private ownership of lands.
Facts:
GR No 173775
On April 1976, DENR approved the National
Reservation Survey of Boracay Island, which However, on May 2002, during the pendency of
identified several lots as being occupied or the case, President GMA issued Proclamation No.
claimed by named persons. 1064 classifying Boracay Island into 400 hundred
hectares of reserved forest land (protection
On November 1978, then Pres. Marcos issued purposes) and 628.96 hectares of agricultural land
Proclamation No. 1801 declaring Boracay Island, (alienable and disposable).
among other islands, caves, and peninsulas in the
Philippines, as tourist zones and marine reserves On August 2006, petitioners-claimants in Boracay
under the administration of the Philippine Tourism filed for a mandamus, alleging that Proclamation
Authority (PTA). Pres. Marcos later approved the No 1064 infringed on their “prior vested rights”
issuance of PTA Circular 3-82 to implement over portions of Boracay. They stated that they
Proclamation No. 1801. had been in continued possession of their
respective lots in Boracay since time immemorial
Claiming that Proclamation No. 1801 and PTA and that they have invested billions in developing
Circular No 3-82 precluded the from filing an their lands.
application for judicial confirmation of imperfect
title survey of land for titling purposes, They contended that there is no need for a
respondents-claimants Mayor Yap, Talapian, proclamation reclassifying Boracay into
Sumndad, and Yap filed a petition for declaratory agricultural land since the Philippine Bill of 1902
relief. and Act No 926 deemed the island as agricultural
land.
They alleged that the orders in question raised
doubts on their right to secure titles over their The Court ordered the consolidation of the 2 cases.
occupied lands. They declared that they had been
 that lands occupied by private claimants were
already open to disposition before 2006. Matters
Issue: of land classification or reclassification cannot be
assumed. They call for proof.
Whether Proclamation No. 1801 posed any legal
hindrance or impediment to the titling of the lands Private claimants are not entitled to apply for
in Boracay. judicial confirmation of imperfect title under CA
No. 141. Neither do they have vested rights over
SC Ruling: the occupied lands under the said law. There are
two requisites for judicial confirmation of
* A peak at the Regalian principle and the imperfect or incomplete title under CA No. 141,
power of the executive to reclassify lands namely: (1) open, continuous, exclusive, and
notorious possession and occupation of the subject
The Regalian Doctrine dictates that all land by himself or through his predecessors-in-
lands of the public domain belong to the State, interest under a bona fide claim of ownership since
that the State is the source of any asserted time immemorial or from June 12, 1945; and (2)
right to ownership of land and charged the classification of the land as alienable and
with the conservation of such patrimony. disposable land of the public domain.
All lands not otherwise appearing to be
clearly within private ownership are As discussed, the Philippine Bill of 1902, Act No.
presumed to belong to the State. 926, and Proclamation No. 1801 did not convert
portions of Boracay Island into an agricultural
A positive act declaring land as alienable and land. The island remained an unclassified land of
disposable is required. In keeping with the the public domain and, applying the Regalian
presumption of State ownership, the Court has doctrine, is considered State property.
time and again emphasized that there must be a
positive act of the government, such as an official Private claimants' bid for judicial confirmation of
proclamation,80 declassifying inalienable public imperfect title, relying on the Philippine Bill of
land into disposable land for agricultural or other 1902, Act No. 926, and Proclamation No. 1801,
purposes. In fact, Section 8 of CA No. 141 limits must fail because of the absence of the second
alienable or disposable lands only to those lands element of alienable and disposable land. Their
which have been "officially delimited and entitlement to a government grant under our
classified." present Public Land Act presupposes that the land
possessed and applied for is already alienable and
To prove that the land subject of an application for disposable. This is clear from the wording of the
registration is alienable, the applicant must law itself.129 Where the land is not alienable and
establish the existence of a positive act of the disposable, possession of the land, no matter how
government such as a presidential proclamation or long, cannot confer ownership or possessory
an executive order; an administrative action; rights.
investigation reports of Bureau of Lands
investigators; and a legislative act or a statute. Neither may private claimants apply for judicial
confirmation of imperfect title under Proclamation
In the case at bar, no such proclamation, executive No. 1064, with respect to those lands which were
order, administrative action, report, statute, or classified as agricultural lands. Private claimants
certification was presented to the Court. The failed to prove the first element of open,
records are bereft of evidence showing that, prior continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of
to 2006, the portions of Boracay occupied by their lands in Boracay since June 12, 1945.
private claimants were subject of a government
proclamation that the land is alienable and
disposable. Absent such well-nigh incontrovertible
evidence, the Court cannot accept the submission
 his personal judgment and discretion when
confronted with the problem of whether to register
a deed or instrument on the ground that it is
Teodoro Almirol vs The Register of Deeds of invalid. For under the said section, when he is in
Agusan, GR No L-22486, March 20, 1968 doubt as to the proper step to be taken with respect
to any deed or other instrument presented to him
Facts: for registration, all that he is supposed to do is to
submit and certify the question to the
Almirol purchased from Arcenio Abalo a parcel of Commissioner of Land Registration, who shall
land situated in the municipality of Esperanza, after notice and hearing, enter an order prescribing
Agusan, and covered by original certificate of title the step to be taken on the doubtful question.
(OCT) P-1237 in the name of “Arcenio Abalo,
married to Nicolasa M. Abalo.”

Sometime later, Almirol went to the office of the

Register of Deeds of Agusan to register the deed
of sale and to secure in his name a transfer
certificate of title. However, Registration was
refused by the Register of Deeds due to several
grounds.

In view of such, Almirol went to the CFI of

Agusan on a petition for mandamus to compel the
Register of Deeds to register the deed of sale and
to issue to him the corresponding transfer
certificate of title, and to recover damages and
attorney’s fees.

The lower court held that the mandamus will not

lie because the adequate remedy is that provided
by Section 4 of Republic Act 1151.

Issue:

Whether the mandamus will lie to compel the

respondent to register the deed of sale in question.

SC Ruling:

Although the reasons relied upon by the

respondent evidence a sincere desire on his part to
maintain inviolate the law on succession and
transmission of rights over real properties, these
do not constitute legal grounds for his refusal to
register the deed. Whether a document is valid or
not, is not for the register of deeds to determine;
this function belongs properly to a court of
competent jurisdiction.

Indeed, a register of deeds is entirely precluded by

Section 4 of Republic Act 1151 from exercising