Case Summary (G.R. No. 216999)
Petitioner, Respondent and Procedural Posture
- Petitioner sought annulment of the Court of Appeals’ affirmation of the Regional Trial Court’s grant of respondent’s application for registration of title.
- Procedural history includes an earlier LRC registration attempt by Andres (archived/dismissed), free patent and judicial registration of adjacent/co-heirs’ parcels, respondent’s 2005 registration application before RTC Branch 10, RTC approval (July 29, 2011), CA affirmation (August 27, 2014), denial of CA reconsideration (Feb 4, 2015), and the present Supreme Court certiorari petition (denied).
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
- Governing constitutional basis used by the Court: the 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable because the decision date is after 1990).
- Statutory and doctrinal authorities invoked in the case: Republic Act No. 8371 (Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997, IPRA), Commonwealth Act No. 141 (Public Land Act), Property Registration Decree (P.D. 1529), relevant precedent cases (e.g., Cruz v. Secretary of DENR; CariAo v. Insular Government; Republic v. Court of Appeals and Cosalan), and principles on Regalian Doctrine and native title.
Antecedents and historical occupation of the land
Respondent alleged a continuous ancestral and private occupation traceable to his great-great-grandparents and subsequent heirs, beginning with acquisition and cultivation by Peran and Bangkilay Acop from their marriage in 1858. The Cosalan family history includes long-term agricultural use and cattle ranching; several family members inherited and occupied portions of the original tract. Respondent claimed ancestral possession since time immemorial and asserted use for agriculture, grazing, and tree planting.
Survey, title attempts and adjacent titles history
- The subject parcel was surveyed and issued Surveyor’s Certificate PSU-204810 (March 12, 1964).
- Nieves (one heir) obtained Free Patent No. 576952 and OCT No. P-776 for her share (107,219 sq.m.).
- Enrique procured judicial registration (LRC No. N-87) confirmed by judgment (resulting in OCT No. O-238).
- Andres filed LRC Case No. N-422 (37) for the subject parcel; that case was archived/dismissed on his motion. Andres later sold the parcel to respondent by Deed of Absolute Sale (Aug 31, 1994). The possession and title histories of adjacent owners (Nieves, Cid Acop) include issued Torrens titles despite location within the forest reserve.
Evidence presented in respondent’s registration application
Respondent testified as to possession and acts of dominion: fencing with barbed wire, construction of a 200-meter road, levelling for gardening and construction, planting pine trees, coffee and bamboo, and tax declarations and payments. Witnesses (Priscilla Baban and Bangilan Acop) corroborated familial inheritance, historical possession, agricultural use, and continuous occupation. Respondent asserted membership in an Indigenous Cultural Community/Indigenous Peoples (Ibaloi) and claimed ancestral land status under the IPRA.
DENR’s opposition and legal objection
DENR–CAR opposed registration on the ground that the parcel lies within the Central Cordillera Forest Reserve as declared under Proclamation No. 217, arguing that the land was forest land even prior to the proclamation, that kaingin use does not convert its forest character, and that only the Executive (not courts) can classify public domain lands as alienable and disposable.
RTC decision and its reasoning
The Regional Trial Court approved respondent’s application for registration (July 29, 2011). The RTC found that respondent and his predecessors had ownership and possession predating the declaration of the forest reserve. The RTC noted that DENR itself had earlier issued free patents/titles to neighboring parcels within the reserve, supporting recognition of private interests preexisting the reservation. The court ordered issuance of the decree of registration in respondent’s name.
Court of Appeals decision and its rationale
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC in toto (Aug 27, 2014). The CA held that ancestral lands occupied and possessed by members of ICCs/IPs since time immemorial or for not less than 30 years, with claims uncontested by members of the same ICCs/IPs, may be registered under the Public Land Act (C.A. 141). The CA emphasized that while the Government can classify public lands, private interests that possessed and cultivated land in good faith prior to reservation should be recognized and not prejudiced by later classifications. The CA relied on precedents institutionalizing native title.
Grounds of the Supreme Court petition (issues raised)
Petitioner advanced multiple grounds for allowance: (I) the subject land is forest land within the Central Cordillera Forest Reserve and therefore not registrable; (II) CA’s reliance on Cruz v. Secretary of DENR and CariAo is misplaced; (III) reliance on other cases (Oh Cho, Ramos, Republic v. CA and Enrique Cosalan) is erroneous and inconsistent with Director of Land Management v. CA and Hilario; and (IV) respondent’s application under Section 12 of IPRA in relation to Section 48 of C.A. No. 141 is erroneous because C.A. No. 141 applies only to agricultural public lands.
Petitioner’s arguments summarized
Petitioner argued that the land was forest land before and at the time of the proclamation and remained so; kaingin or swidden cultivation does not remove forest character; classification into alienable and disposable lands is an executive function and courts cannot reclassify public domain lands into alienable status; and statutory schemes constrain registration of such lands.
Respondent’s arguments summarized
Respondent countered that the land is ancestral and had been used for agriculture (dryland crops, grazing, tree farming) and had been surveyed and delineated (PSU-204810, 1964). He maintained continuous, open, notorious, exclusive, and adverse possession through himself and predecessors-in-interest since time immemorial, and that improvements and taxation supported his claim.
Supreme Court’s analysis: native title, IPRA definition, and the Regalian Doctrine exception
The Supreme Court held the petition without merit. It recognized that, as a rule, forest land in the Central Cordillera Forest Reserve is not subject to private appropriation. However, the Court found respondent established ancestral land status and continuous occupation by ICC/IP members predating the reservation. The Court applied Section 3(b) of RA No. 8371 (IPRA) defining ancestral lands and the doctrine of native title: lands held by ICCs/IPs under a claim of private ownership since memory reaches are presumed never to have been public lands, forming an exception to the Regalian Doctrine (Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution). The Court cited Cruz v. Secretary of DENR and other authority for the presumption against the State when continuous private possession since time immemorial is shown.
Application of IPRA and Commonwealth Act No. 141 to registration
The Court co
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 216999)
Caption, Citation and Nature of Proceeding
- Supreme Court, Third Division, G.R. No. 216999, July 04, 2018; reported at 835 Phil. 649.
- Petition by certiorari seeking reversal and setting aside the August 27, 2014 Decision and the February 4, 2015 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. CV No. 98224.
- The CA decision affirmed in toto the July 29, 2011 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), La Trinidad, Benguet, Branch 10, which granted respondent Ronald M. Cosalan’s application for registration of title to a parcel of land.
- Parties: Republic of the Philippines (petitioner) versus Ronald M. Cosalan (respondent).
Subject Property — Description and Survey Evidence
- Parcel located in Sitio Adabong, Barrio Kapunga, Municipality of Tublay, Benguet.
- Area: 98,205 square meters, more or less.
- Under approved Survey Plan PSU‑204810 issued by the Bureau of Lands on March 12, 1964 (Surveyor’s Certificate dated March 12, 1964 issued by the Director of Lands).
- The subject land is situated within the Central Cordillera Forest Reserve, established under Proclamation No. 217 (a fact central to the controversy).
Ancestral and Historical Allegations by Respondent (Family History and Possession)
- Respondent alleges membership in the Ibaloi Tribe of Bokod and Tublay, Benguet; claims descent as eldest son of Andres Acop Cosalan (Andres), who was the youngest son of Fernando Cosalan (Fernando).
- Traces ownership lineage to great‑grandparents Opilis and Adonis; property passed to their daughter Peran who married Bangkilay Acop (Bangkilay) in 1858.
- Allegation that Peran and Bangkilay settled, developed, and farmed the property since 1858; Acop enlarged holdings and used the lands for agriculture and extensive cattle grazing (hundreds of cattle).
- Connection to the historical cattle country: contemporaneity and kinship ties between Bangkilay/Acop family and Mateo CariAo, with cross‑family marriages noted (Sioco and Guilata).
- Succession: upon Bangkilay’s death in 1918, the land passed to his children including Aguinaya (who married Fernando). After Fernando and Aguinaya’s deaths (1945 and 1950), their children Nieves, Enrique, and Andres inherited shares.
- Nieves registered her share via Free Patent No. 576952 and was issued Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P‑776; Enrique registered his share via judicial process (LRC No. N‑87) and obtained OCT No. O‑238.
- Andres sought registration of his share (the subject land) via judicial process (LRC Case No. N‑422 (37), Record No. N54212) and later sold the subject land to respondent in 1994 for P300,000.00 under a Deed of Absolute Sale of Unregistered Land dated August 31, 1994.
Possessory Acts and Physical Improvements Alleged by Respondent
- Alleged continuous, exclusive, peaceful, notorious and adverse occupation, cultivation and actual possession in the concept of an owner by respondent and predecessors since time immemorial.
- Specific acts of dominion include: fencing with barbed wire, construction of a 200‑meter road, levelling areas for gardening and future construction, planting pine trees, coffee and bamboos.
- Payment and declaration for taxation purposes asserted as regular and continuous.
- Use described as dryland agriculture (camote, corn, vegetables), grazing of farm animals and cattle, and some parts subjected to tree farming.
Witnesses and Testimony Presented by Respondent
- Respondent and Andres presented as principal witnesses.
- Priscilla Baban (maternal first cousin of Andres) testified to inheritance of adjacent property from Margarina Acop (daughter of Bangkilay), common origin of adjacent properties with subject land, historical use for vegetation and cattle, Andres’s planting of pine trees and later selling or permitting use as firewood, and subsequent sale by Andres to respondent.
- Bangilan Acop testified to longstanding residence in Barangay Adabong since age seven and that his father Cid Acop inherited the property adjoining the subject land; his father’s property was issued a certificate of title.
Opposition by DENR‑CAR and Governmental Position
- The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) – Cordillera Administrative Region opposed registration on ground that the subject land is part of the Central Cordillera Forest Reserve established under Proclamation No. 217.
- Petitioner (Republic) maintains that the land was forest land even prior to Proclamation No. 217; notes elevated, forested character and utilization under kaingin system, arguing such use does not change forest character.
- Petitioner contends that only the Executive has authority to reclassify lands of public domain into alienable and disposable; reliance on prevailing doctrine (Director of Land Management and Director of Forest Development v. Court of Appeals and Hilario) emphasized.
Procedural History — Lower Court Rulings
- Earlier LRC Case No. N‑422 (37) before RTC Branch 8 filed by Andres was archived on August 23, 1983 and dismissed on motion of Andres by Order dated November 13, 2004.
- Respondent filed application for registration before RTC Branch 10 on February 8, 2005.
- On July 29, 2011, RTC, Branch 10 approved respondent’s application for registration and placed the described land under the operation of P.D. 1529 (Property Registration Law) in the name of Ronald M. Cosalan; decretal portion ordered issuance of the decree of registration upon finality.
- Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Court of Appeals Ruling and Reasoning
- CA Decision dated August 27, 2014 affirmed in toto the RTC ruling (CA‑G.R. CV No. 98224).
- CA held that ancestral lands owned by members of Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) or their predecessors, in continuous possession in the concept of owner since time immemorial or at least 30 years and uncontested within the ICC/IP, may be registered under C.A. 141 (Public Land Act/ Land Registration Act).
- CA stated that government’s classification of public land as forestry land should not prejudice private individuals who possessed and cultivated land in good faith prior to such classification; government may reserve land as forest only so long as private interests had not intervened before reservation.
- CA relied on doctrine institutionalized in Cruz v. Secretary of DENR recognizing native title; also referenced Ankron v. Government of the Philippine Islands (quoted).
Petitioner’s Grounds for the Supreme Court Petition
- Petitioner contends CA decision and resolution are not in accord with law and applicable jurisprudence and raises specific grounds:
- I. Subject land is forest land within Central Cordillera Forest Reserve and not registrable; was forest land prior to Proclamation No. 217.
- II. CA’s reliance on Cruz v. Secretary of DENR and CariAo v.