Secretary of DENR vs Yap On November 7, 1996, petitioner Republic of the Philippines,

through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), opposed the

Natural Resources and Environmental Laws: Regalian Doctrine application
GR No. 167707; Oct 8, 2008 On February 6, 1997, an Order of General Default[5] was entered by
FACTS: the trial court against the whole world except for the government
and a certain Alex Vasquez, who appeared during the scheduled
This petition is for a review on certiorari of the decision of the Court initial hearing stating that he would file an opposition to... the
of Appeals (CA) affirming that of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in application.
Kalibo Aklan, which granted the petition for declaratory relief filed
by respondents-claimants Mayor Jose Yap et al, and ordered the On June 16, 1997, the trial court noted[13] a Report[14] submitted
survey of Boracay for titling purposes. by the Director of Lands, which informed the court that as per
records of the Land Management Bureau in Manila, Lot No. 2276,
On Nov. 10, 1978, President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1801 CAD-239 is covered by Free Patent
declaring Boracay Island as a tourist zone and marine reserve.
Claiming that Proc. No. 1801 precluded them from filing an Application No. 10-2-664 of Anastacia Vitero.
application for a judicial confirmation of imperfect title or survey of Issues:
land for titling purposes, respondents-claimants filed a petition for
declaratory relief with the RTC in Kalibo, Aklan. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE TRIAL
COURT HAS NOT ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE.
The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
opposed the petition countering that Boracay Island was an PRIVATE RESPONDENT HAS NOT PROVEN BY COMPETENT EVIDENCE
unclassified land of the public domain. It formed part of the mass of THAT THE PROPERTY IS ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE PROPERTY OF
lands classified as “public forest,” which was not available for THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.[
disposition pursuant to section 3(a) of PD No. 705 or the Revised
Forestry Code. Ruling:

ISSUE: Anent the first issue, petitioner maintains that the failure to present
the original tracing cloth plan is a fatal omission which necessarily
 Whether unclassified lands of the public domain are automatically affected the trial court's jurisdiction to proceed with the case.
deemed agricultural land, therefore making these lands alienable.
It bears stressing that the "constructive seizure of land accomplished
HELD: by posting of notices and processes upon all persons mentioned in
notices by means of publication and sending copies to said persons
No. To prove that the land subject of an application for registration by registered mail in effect gives the court jurisdiction over the
is alienable, the applicant must establish the existence of a positive lands... sought to be registered.
act of the government such as a presidential proclamation or an
executive order, an administrative action, investigative reports of The CA is of the opinion that respon... ndent need not adduce
the Bureau of Lands investigators, and a legislative act or statute. documentary proofs that the disputed property has been declared
alienable and disposable because of the fact that it had once been
A positive act declaring land as alienable and disposable is required. covered by Free Patent Application No. 10-2-664 in the name of
In keeping with the presumption of state ownership, the Court has respondent's mother, which... was unfortunately not acted upon by
time and again emphasized that there must be a positive act of the the proper authorities. The CA declares that this is proof enough
government, such as an official proclamation, declassifying that the property was declared by the government as open for
inalienable public land into disposable land for agricultural or other public disposition.
purposes.
In the present case, respondent failed to submit a certification from
The Regalian Doctrine dictates that all lands of the public domain the proper government agency to prove that the land subject for
belong to the State, that the State is the source of any asserted right registration is indeed alienable and disposable. A CENRO certificate,
to ownership of land and charged with the conservation of such which respondent failed to secure, could have evidenced the
patrimony. alienability of... the land involved.
All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private Considering that respondent has failed to convince this Court of the
ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Thus, all lands that alienable and disposable character of the land applied for, the Court
have not been acquired from the government, either by purchase or cannot approve the application for registration.
by grant, belong to the State as part of the inalienable public
domain.   WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED.

REPUBLIC v. LUDOLFO V. MUÑOZ, GR No. 151910, 2007-10-15

Facts:

On June 14, 1996, respondent filed an Application for Registration of

Title of a parcel of residential land before the RTC of Ligao, Albay
containing an area of 1,986 square meters situated, bounded
RURAL BANK VS. ROMAN CATHOLIC
On 4 January 2000, the trial court rendered a decision, the
The lot in dispute, Cadastral Lot 736 (Lot 736), is located in the dispositive portion of which reads:
Poblacion of Binmaley, Pangasinan. Lot 736 has a total area of about
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, judgment is hereby
1,300 square meters and is part of Lot 3. Cadastral Lot 737 and Lot
rendered in favor of the plaintiff [Roman Catholic Archbishop of
739 also form part of Lot 3. Cadastral Lot 737 is known as Imelda's
Lingayen-Dagupan]:
Park, while on Lot 739 is a waiting shed for commuters. Lot 3 is
bounded on the north by Lot 1 of Plan II-5201-A and on the south by Making the writ of preliminary Injunction permanent;
the national road. In front of Lot 736 is the building of Mary Help of
Christians Seminary (seminary) which is on Lot 1.

Lot 1 of Plan II-5201-A, which adjoins Lot 3 on the north, is titled in Ordering the defendants to cause to be restored the concrete wall
the name of respondent Roman Catholic Archbishop of Lingayen with iron railings, to cause to be removed the sawali fence, both at
(respondent) under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 6375 (TCT 6375). the expense of the defendants, jointly and severally, and
An annotation on TCT 6375 states that the ownership of Lot 3 is
being claimed by both respondent and the Municipality of Binmaley.
Condemning the defendants to pay jointly and severally, to the
plaintiff the amount of P25,000.00 as litigation expenses, attorney's
In 1958, the Rector of the seminary ordered the construction of the fees in the amount of P50,000.00 and the costs of this suit.
fence separating Lot 736 from the national road to prevent the
SO ORDERED.[8]
caretelas from parking because the smell of horse manure was
already bothering the priests living in the seminary.[3] The concrete On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision with the
fence enclosing Lot 736 has openings in the east, west, and center modification that the awards of litigation expenses, attorney's fees,
and has no gate. People can pass through Lot 736 at any time of the and costs should be deleted. The Court of Appeals subsequently
day.[4] denied the motion for reconsideration of the Municipality of
Binmaley and the Rural Bank of Anda.

(Rural Bank vs. Roman Catholic G.R. No. 155051 May 29, 2007)
On 22 December 1997, the Sangguniang Bayan of Binmaley,
Pangasinan, passed and approved Resolution Nos. 104[5] and 105. Cruz vs Secretary of DENR
[6] Resolution No. 104 converted Lot 736 from an institutional lot to
a commercial lot. Resolution No. 105 authorized the municipal Natural Resources and Environmental Law; Constitutional Law; IPRA;
mayor to enter into a contract of lease for 25 years with the Rural Regalian Doctrine
Bank of Anda over a portion of Lot 736 with an area of 252 square
meters.[7]
GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000

In December 1997, Fr. Arenos, the director of the seminary,

discovered that a sawali fence was being constructed enclosing a FACTS:
portion of Lot 736. In January 1998, the Municipal Mayor of
Binmaley, Rolando Domalanta (Mayor Domalanta), came to the Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for prohibition
seminary to discuss the situation. Mayor Domalanta and Fr. Arenos and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the
agreed that the construction of the building for the Rural Bank of constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8371,
Anda should be stopped. otherwise known as the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997
(IPRA) and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR). The
petitioners assail certain provisions of the IPRA and its IRR on the
ground that these amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s
On 24 March 1998, respondent requested Mayor Domalanta to
ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and
remove the sawali fence and restore the concrete fence. On 20 May
other natural resources therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine
1998, Mayor Domalanta informed respondent that the construction
embodied in section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.
of the building of the Rural Bank of Anda would resume but that he
was willing to discuss with respondent to resolve the problem
concerning Lot 736.
ISSUE:

Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution?

On 1 June 1998, respondent filed a complaint for Abatement of
Illegal Constructions, Injunction and Damages with Writ of
Preliminary Injunction in the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen,
HELD:
Pangasinan. On 24 August 1998, the trial court ordered the issuance
of a writ of preliminary Injunction.
No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution.
Examining the IPRA, there is nothing in the law that grants to the
ICCs/IPs ownership over the natural resources within their ancestral
domain. Ownership over the natural resources in the ancestral
domains remains with the State and the rights granted by the IPRA
to the ICCs/IPs over the natural resources in their ancestral domains
merely gives them, as owners and occupants of the land on which
the resources are found, the right to the small scale utilization of
these resources, and at the same time, a priority in their large scale
development and exploitation.

Additionally, ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not part of

the lands of the public domain. They are private lands and belong to
the ICCs/IPs by native title, which is a concept of private land title
that existed irrespective of any royal grant from the State. However,
the right of ownership and possession by the ICCs/IPs of their
ancestral domains is a limited form of ownership and does not
include the right to alienate the same.