Title
Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 83609
Decision Date
Oct 26, 1989
The Supreme Court ruled that forest lands cannot be privately owned without government declassification, reversing the Court of Appeals' decision favoring respondents' claim based on long possession.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 83609)

Facts and Procedural History

Respondents Ibarra and Amelia Bisnar applied for registration of two parcels of land, Lots 866 and 870 of Pilar Cadastra, covering approximately 62 hectares in total. They claimed ownership in fee simple by inheritance and asserted continuous possession and tax payments. The Director of Lands opposed, arguing the parcels were part of the public domain under forest classification and that neither the applicants nor their predecessors held lawful title under recognized modes such as royal grants or purchase titles. The applicants amended their petition to invoke the benefits of Section 48, Chapter 8, Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 141, claiming over 50 years of possession. The trial court granted registration based on findings of long, peaceful, and adverse possession with improvements. The Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting the Director of Forestry's timberland classification absent proof of superior forest value.

Issues on Appeal

  1. Whether classification or reclassification of public lands is a judicial or executive function.
  2. Whether long possession of forest lands can confer private ownership.
  3. Whether the applicants met the burden of proof under Section 48 of CA 141 for registration.

Executive versus Judicial Authority on Land Classification

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the doctrine that classification or reclassification of public lands into alienable or disposable agricultural land, mineral land, or forest land is an exclusive prerogative of the Executive Department, specifically through the Office of the President. Courts lack jurisdiction to alter such classification. This principle was established under Section 6 of CA 141 and further confirmed in Bureau of Forestry v. Court of Appeals. Consequently, the Court of Appeals erred in disregarding official certifications that the lots in question were forest lands and needed for forest purposes.

Effect of Forest Land Classification on Ownership Claims

The Court emphasized that forest lands remain under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bureau of Forestry and cannot be subject to private ownership, regardless of the duration of possession. Possession, even if continuous and adverse for decades, does not transform forest lands into alienable property. Declassification or release from forest status into alienable agricultural land requires a formal proclamation by the government. Without such executive action, claims for title registration based on possession under Section 48 of CA 141 do not apply. The Court cited prior rulings holding that possession of forest lands cannot ripen into ownership and that cadastral courts lack jurisdiction to register titles over forest lands.

Burden of Proof Under Section 48 of CA 141

Applicants for confirmation and registration of imperfect titles bear the burden of proof to establish:

  • The land is public agricultural land (not forest land).
  • They or their predecessors-in-interest have possessed the land openly, continuously, exclusively, and adversely for at least t

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.