By Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes III
(This is the beginning of part 2 of the 3-part series on the article entitled: The law on Boracay).
The key points in the decision of the SC in the twin cases involving Boracay are, to wit:
- Prior to 22 May 2006, the entire Boracay island was an “unclassified land” which makes it fall under the classification of Forest Land pursuant to P.D. 705.
- Being Forest land, under the Regalian Doctrine, Boracay is part of Public Land which is owned by the State
- The power to classify lands belongs to the Executive Department, i.e., the President of the Republic of the Philippines
- It was only on 22 May 2006 that Boracay was classified into four hundred (400) hectares of reserved forest land (protection purposes) and six hundred twenty-eight and 96/100 (628.96) hectares of agricultural land (alienable and disposable). The Proclamation further provided for a fifteen-meter buffer zone on each side of the centerline of roads and trails, reserved for right-of-way and which shall form part of the area reserved for forest land protection purposes pursuant to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s issuance of Proclamation No. 1064
- Petitioners in this case, who claim that they have introduced massive improvements on the island failed to prove that their compliance with the requirement for judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title, thus:
“Private claimants are not entitled to apply for judicial confirmation of imperfect title under CA No. 141. Neither do they have vested rights over the occupied lands under the said law. There are two requisites for judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title under CA No. 141, namely: (1) open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject land by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest under a bona fide claim of ownership since time immemorial or from June 12, 1945; and (2) the classification of the land as alienable and disposable land of the public domain.” X x x
Private claimants’ bid for judicial confirmation of imperfect title, relying on the Philippine Bill of 1902, Act No. 926, and Proclamation No. 1801, must fail because of the absence of the second element of alienable and disposable land. Their entitlement to a government grant under our present Public Land Act presupposes that the land possessed and applied for is already alienable and disposable. This is clear from the wording of the law itself. Where the land is not alienable and disposable, possession of the land, no matter how long, cannot confer ownership or possessory rights. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied).
These excerpts of the SC ruling in Sec. of DENR v. Mayor Yap and its accompanying case ushers in the ruling in the Maravilla case where transactions of sale which were entered into prior to 22 May 2006 (the date when Pres. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo classified Boracay into four hundred (400) hectares of reserved forest land (protection purposes) and six hundred twenty-eight and 96/100 (628.96) hectares of agricultural land (alienable and disposable), were declared as null and void. Coincidentally, this case involves an action for quieting of title and recovery of possession which was ruled in favor of petitioner. The proof of ownership relied upon were a deed of absolute sale and a tax declaration which were no longer accepted as valid and competent proof of ownership. Thus a clear abandonment of its earlier ruling in SPS. ALBERTO and JOCELYN AZANA, v. CRISTOPHER LUMBO and ELIZABETH LUMBO-JIMENEZ, G.R. No. 157593 March 22, 2007.
The 3rd case involves the issue of: Where land is not alienable and disposable, possession of the land, no matter how long cannot confer ownership or possessory right and sales transactions entered into involving Boracay lands are null and void as these lands are public lands and can only be acquired by any of the modes allowed under the Public Land Act (C.A. 141). Thus:
“It was only in 2006 when certain parts of Boracay became agricultural land when then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Proclamation No. 1064, positively declaring parts of Boracay as alienable and opening the same to private ownership.
As such, the CA is then correct in ruling that with this Court’s pronouncement that Boracay is state-owned, petitioners’ claim of ownership over the subject property is negated, thus:
With the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court that Boracay is state-owned, private respondent’s ownership over the property in dispute is defeated. As discussed at length by the highest tribunal in the consolidated cases of The Secretary of DENR, et al. v. Yap, et al. in G.R. No. 167707 and Sacay, et al. v. The Secretary of DENR, et al. in G.R. No. 173775, Boracay is an unclassified land of public domain. “Thus, where land is not alienable and disposable, possession of the land, no matter how long cannot confer ownership or possessory right.
It follows then that x x x was not in a position to sell that which he did not own in the first place. This is because at the time the sale was entered into between private respondent and the late x x x, the land in dispute was not alienable and subject to disposition. Since private respondent derives title from whatever right his predecessor-in-interest had, which unfortunately x x x had none, his claim is no longer tenable. Private respondent cannot acquire a right greater than what his predecessor-in-interest had. To allow the execution of judgment would be to give undue advantage to private respondent whose very basis of claim is no longer tenable.”(HEIRS OF ZOSIMO Q. MARAVILLA, NAMELY, ZOSIMO W. MARAVILLA, JR., YVETTE MARAVILLA AND RICHARD MARAVILLA, REPRESENTED BY ZOSIMO W. MARAVILLA, JR., v. PRIVALDO TUPAS, G.R. No. 192132, September 14, 2016)
In effect, the ruling in Heirs of Maravilla teaches that a private sale between two (2) private persons involving any portion of land in Boracay is null and void as the land is public land and only the State by law or through the executive department, can provide modes for disposition thereof to private persons. In turn, the only way that a private person may acquire ownership over a tract of land in Boracay is by Homestead or Free Patent, or by complying with the twin requisites for judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title all pursuant to the Public Land Act, to wit:
“There are two requisites for judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title under CA No. 141, namely: (1) open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject land by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest under a bona fide claim of ownership since time immemorial or from June 12, 1945; and (2) the classification of the land as alienable and disposable land of the public domain.” X x x
(This is the end of part 2 of the 3-part series on The law on Boracay. Please watch out for part 3 in subsequent issues of this newspaper. The author is the senior partner of ET Reyes III & Associates- a law firm based in Iloilo City. He is a litigation attorney, a law professor and a law book author. His website is etriiilaw.com)
