Case Digest in: Natural Resources and Environmental Law

Title of the Case:

G.R. No. L-32266 February 27, 1989

THE DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY, petitioner

Counsel:

The Solicitor General for petitioner.

Quasha, Asperilla, Ancheta, Valmonte, Pena & Marcos for respondents.

Ponente:

CRUZ, J.:

Brief:

Mr. Villareal filed an application for registration of parcel of land in Capiz. Director of Forestry was one of the several
persons who opposed the application, for such land is mangrove swamps and classified as inalienable. Villareal alleged
that he and his predecessors-in- interest had been in possession of the said parcel of land for more than 40 yrs. Villareal
argued that mangrove swamp are agricultural land and not forestall land as claimed by Director of Forestry. CFI-Capiz
grants the application of the respondent and it was affirmed by CA.

SC said that mangrove swamps are forest lands. Being a forest land, it is descriptive of its legal nature/status and does
not have the descriptive of what the land actually looks like. Legislative definition embodied in Sec. 1820 or Revised
Admin Code of 1917 (which is not yet amended at the time of resolution of that case) declares that mangrove swamps or
manglares forms part of the public forests of the Phils. hence they are not alienable. Moreso, evidence provided by the
respondent in its claim (eg. tax declaration) is not sufficient to prove its possession and ownership of the land. Thus
registration of subject land is dismissed. Agricultural lands should be understood as covering only those lands over which
ownership had already vested before the Admin Code of 1917 become effective. Such lands cannot be retroactively
legislated as forest lands because this would be violative of a duly acquired property right protected by due process
clause.

Doctrine:

Facts:

Ruperto Villareal applied for registration of certain parcel of land in Sapian, Capiz (178,113 square meters;
mangrove swamps) on January 25, 1949, alleging that he and his predecessors-in-interest had been in possession
of the land for more than 40 years.

Several person’s opposed the same, including the Director of Forestry on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines.

The application was approved by the CFI-Capiz and was affirmed by CA.
The Director of Forestry file a petition for review on certiorari to SC, claiming that the land in dispute was forestal in
nature and not subject to private appropriation. He asks that the registration be reversed.

There is no dispute that the land is a mangrove land.

Issue:

legal classification of mangrove swamps, or manglares.. If they are part of our public forest lands, they are not
alienable under the Constitution. If they are considered public agricultural lands, they may be acquired under private
ownership

Held:

Background of the case:

Phil. Bill of 1902

- American organic acts in the country.

- lands of the public domain in the Philippine Islands were classified into three grand divisions, to wit, agricultural,
mineral and timber or forest lands.

This classification was maintained in the 1935 Constitution. In 1973 Constitution, classification were expanded to
include industrial or commercial, residential, resettlement, and grazing lands and even permitted the legislature to
provide for other categories. This provision has been reproduced, but with substantial modifications, in the present
3

Constitution. 4

Under 1935 Commonwealth Constitution, which was the charter in force when this case arose, only agricultural
lands were allowed to be alienated. Their disposition was provided for under C.A. No. 141. Mineral and timber or
5

forest lands were not subject to private ownership unless they were first reclassified as agricultural lands and so
released for alienation.

1909 (Montano v. Insular Govt.)-

Mangrove swamps were considered agricultural lands and so susceptible of private ownership.

mangrove swamps or manglares were defined as:

... mud flats, alternately washed and exposed by the tide, in which grows various kindred plants which will not
live except when watered by the sea, extending their roots deep into the mud and casting their seeds, which
also germinate there. These constitute the mangrove flats of the tropics, which exist naturally, but which are
also, to some extent cultivated by man for the sake of the combustible wood of the mangrove and like trees as
well as for the useful nipa palm propagated thereon. Although these flats are literally tidal lands, yet we are of
the opinion that they cannot be so regarded in the sense in which that term is used in the cases cited or in
general American jurisprudence. The waters flowing over them are not available for purpose of navigation, and
they may be disposed of without impairment of the public interest in what remains.

xxx

Under this uncertain and somewhat unsatisfactory condition of the law, the custom had grown of converting
manglares and nipa lands into fisheries which became a common feature of settlement along the coast and at
the same time of the change of sovereignty constituted one of the most productive industries of the Islands, the
abrogation of which would destroy vested interests and prove a public disaster.
Administrative code of 1917

'public forest' includes, except as otherwise specially indicated, all unreserved public land,
including nipa and mangrove swamps, and all forest reserves of whatever character.

1911 (Jocson v. Director of Forestry)

...the words timber land are always translated in the Spanish translation of that Act (Act of Congress)
as terrenos forestales. We think there is an error in this translation and that a better translation
would be 'terrenos madereros.' Lumber land in English means land with trees growing on it. The
mangler plant would never be called a tree in English but a bush, and land which has only bushes,
shrubs or aquatic plants growing on it cannot be called 'timber land.

xxx xxx xxx

The fact that there are a few trees growing in a manglare or nipa swamps does not change the
general character of the land from manglare to timber land.

Mapa vs. Insular Govt.

the phrase agricultural lands as used in Act No. 926 means those public lands acquired from Spain
which are not timber or mineral lands.

Whatever may have been the meaning of the term 'forestry' under the Spanish law, the Act of
Congress of July 1st 1902, classifies the public lands in the Philippine Islands as timber, mineral or
agricultural lands, and all public lands that are not timber or mineral lands are necessarily
agricultural public lands, whether they are used as nipa swamps, manglares, fisheries or
ordinary farm lands.

The definition of forestry as including manglares found in the Administrative Code of 1917 cannot
affect rights which vested prior to its enactment.

These lands being neither timber nor mineral lands, the trial court should have considered them
agricultural lands. If they are agricultural lands, then the rights of appellants are fully established by
Act No. 926.

1933 (Garchitorena Vda. de Centenera v. Obias

opposition of the Director of Forestry is untenable, inasmuch as it has been definitely decided
that mangrove lands are not forest lands in the sense in which this phrase is used in the Act of
Congress. (based on Montano and Jocson case)

1977 (Tongson vs. Director of Forestry)

the mangrove lands in litis were agricultural in nature.

... Mangrove swamps where only trees of mangrove species grow, where the trees are small and
sparse, fit only for firewood purposes and the trees growing are not of commercial value as lumber
do not convert the land into public land. Such lands are not forest in character. They do not form part
of the public domain.

1988 (Republic v. De Porkan)

- citing Krivenko v. Register of Deeds, reiterated the ruling in the Mapa case that "all public lands that are
11

not timber or mineral lands are necessarily agricultural public lands, whether they are used as nipa
 swamps, manglares, fisheries or ordinary farm lands.

Line of decisions holding the contrary view:

1983 (Yngson v. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources)

- "that the Bureau of Fisheries has no jurisdiction to dispose of swamp lands or mangrove lands forming part
of the public domain while such lands are still classified as forest lands.

Four months later, in Heirs of Amunategui v. Director of Forestry,

A forested area classified as forest land of the public domain does not lose such classification simply
because loggers or settlers may have stripped it of its forest cover. Parcels of land classified as
forest land may actually be covered with grass or planted to crops by kaingin cultivators or other
farmers. 'Forested lands' do not have to be on mountains or in out-of-the-way places. Swampy
areas covered by mangrove trees, nipa palms, and other trees growing in brackish or sea water may
also be classified as forest land. The classification is descriptive of its legal nature or status and
does not have to be descriptive of what the land actually looks like. Unless and until the land
classsified as 'forest' is released in an official proclamation to that effect so that it may form part of
the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain, the rules on confirmation of imperfect titles do
not apply.'

- (The view was maintained in Vallarta v. Intermediate Appellate Court- that the land in dispute, which he
described as "swamp mangrove or forestal land," were not private properties and so not registerable. This
case was decided only twelve days after the De Porkan case).

Determination of classification of certain land initially belong to legistature The legislature having made such
implementation, the executive officials may then, in the discharge of their own role, administer our public lands
pursuant to their constitutional duty " to ensure that the laws be faithfully executed' and in accordance with the
policy prescribed. For their part, the courts will step into the picture if the rules laid down by the legislature are
challenged or, assuming they are valid, it is claimed that they are not being correctly observed by the executive.
Thus do the three departments, coordinating with each other, pursue and achieve the objectives of the Constitution
in the conservation and utilization of our natural resources.

CA 141 delegated to the President of the Phils. the function of making periodic classifications of public lands:

Sec. 6. The President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, shall from time to time classify the lands of the public domain into:

(a) Alienable or disposable,

(b) Lumber, and

(c) Mineral lands,

and may at any time and in a like manner transfer such lands from one class to another, for the
purposes of their administration and disposition.

Sec. 7. For the purposes of the administration and disposition of alienable or disposable lands, the
President, upon recommendation by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, shall from
time to time declare what lands are open to disposition or concession under this Act.

With particular regard to alienable public lands, Section 9 of the same law provides:

For the purpose of their administration and disposition, the lands of the public domain alienable or
 open to disposition shall be classified, according to the use or purposes to which such lands are
destined, as follows:

(a) Agricultural;

(b) Residential, commercial, industrial, or for similar productive purposes;

(c) Educational, charitable, or other similar purposes; and

(d) Reservations for townsites and for public and quasi-public uses.

The President, upon recommendation by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, shall
from time to time make the classifications provided for in this section, and may, at any time and in a
similar manner, transfer lands from one class to another.

As for timber or forest lands, the Revised Administrative Code states as follows:

Sec. 1826. Regulation setting apart forest reserves- Revocation of same. - Upon Director of
Forestry’s commendation, with the approval of the Department Head, the President of the
Philippines may set apart forest reserves from the public lands. By proclamation, he shall declare
the establishment of such reserves and the boundaries thereof. Thereafter such forest reserves
shall not be entered, sold, or otherwise disposed of, but shall remain as such for forest uses, and
shall be administered in the same manner as public forest.

The President, by proclamation alter or modify the boundaries of any forest reserve from time to
time, or revoke any such proclamation. Upon such revocation, such forest reserve shall be and
become part of the public lands as though such proclamation had never been made.

Sec. 1827. Assignment of forest land for agricultural purposes. – Upon certification of the Director of
Forestry (that lands are better adapted and more valuable for agricultural than for forest purposes;
not required by the public interest to be kept under forest), Lands in public forest not including forest
reserves shall be declared by Department head to be agricultural lands.

Conclusion of Supreme Court:

Mangrove swamps or manglares should be understood as comprised within the public forests of the Philippines as
defined in the aforecited Section 1820 of the Administrative Code of 1917.

SC has no authority to ignore or modify legislature’s decision and in effect veto it in the exercise of its own
discretion.

The statutory definition remains unchanged to date and, no less noteworthy, is accepted and invoked by the
executive department. More importantly, the said provision has not been challenged as arbitrary or unrealistic or
unconstitutional assuming the requisite conditions, to justify our judicial intervention and scrutiny.

The law is thus presumed valid and so must be respected. We repeat our statement in the Amunategui case that the
classification of mangrove swamps as forest lands is descriptive of its legal nature or status and does not have to be
descriptive of what the land actually looks like. That determination having been made and no cogent argument
having been raised to annul it, we have no duty as judges but to apply it. And so we shall.

Our previous description of the term in question as pertaining to our agricultural lands should be understood as
covering only those lands over which ownership had already vested before the Administrative Code of 1917 became
effective.
Such lands could not be retroactively legislated as forest lands because this would be violative of a duly acquired
property right protected by the due process clause.

It follows from all this that the land under contention being admittedly a part of the mangrove swamps of Sapian, and
for which a minor forest license had in fact been issued by the Bureau of Forestry from 1920 to 1950, it must be
considered forest land. It could therefore not be the subject of the adverse possession and consequent ownership
claimed by the private respondent in support of his application for registration. To be so, it had first to be released as
forest land and reclassified as agricultural land pursuant to the certification the Director of Forestry may issue under
Section 1827 of the Revised Administrative Code.

The mere existence of survey plan from Director of Lands would not have the effect of converting the mangrove
swamps, as forest land, into agricultural land. Such approval is ineffectual because it is clearly in officious. The
Director of Lands was not authorized to act in the premises. Under the aforecited law, it is the Director of Forestry
who has the authority to determine whether forest land is more valuable for agricultural rather than forestry uses, as
a basis for its declaration as agricultural land and release for private ownership.

It is elementary in the law governing the disposition of lands of the public domain that until timber or forest lands are
released as disposable and alienable neither the Bureau of Lands nor the Bureau of Fisheries has authority to
lease, grant, sell or otherwise dispose of these lands for homesteads, sales patents, leases for grazing or other
purposes, fishpond leases and other modes of utilization.

The Bureau of Fisheries has no jurisdiction to administer and dispose of swamp lands or mangrove lands forming
part of the public domain while such lands are still classified as forest land or timber land and not released for
fishery or other purposes.

It is elementary in the law governing natural resources that forest land cannot be owned by private persons. It is not
registerable. The adverse possession which can be the basis of a grant of title in confirmation of imperfect title
cases cannot commence until after the forest land has been declared alienable and disposable. Possession of
forest land, no matter how long cannot convert it into private property.'

The record contains no convincing evidence of the existence of the informacion posesoria allegedly obtained by the
original transferor of the property, let alone the fact that the conditions for acquiring title thereunder have been
satisfied. Nowhere has it been shown that the informacion posesoria has been inscribed or registered in the registry
of property and that the land has been under the actual and adverse possession of the private respondent for twenty
years as required by the Spanish Mortgage Law. These matters are not presumed but must be established with
17

definite proof, which is lacking in this case.

Significantly, the tax declarations made by the private respondent were practically the only basis used by the
appellate court in sustaining his claim of possession over the land in question. Tax declarations are, of course, not
sufficient to prove possession and much less vest ownership in favor of the declarant, as we have held in countless
cases. 18

We hold, in sum, that the private respondent has not established his right to the registration of the subject land in his
name. Accordingly, the petition must be granted.

Conformable to the legislative definition embodied in Section 1820 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917,
which remains unamended up to now, mangrove swamps or manglares form part of the public forests of the
Philippines. As such, they are not alienable under the Constitution and may not be the subject of private ownership
until and unless they are first released as forest land and classified as alienable agricultural land.