CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS already patrimonial and declaration that these are

already alienable and disposable. And only when the

LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN property has become patrimonial can the prescriptive
period for the acquisition of property of the public domain
Alienable:
begin to run.
 Are those that can be acquired or issued a title.
CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
 Our constitution provides that agricultural land is the only
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
alienable land of the government, which can be disposed
of to private citizens. 1935 CONSTITUTION:

Inalienable lands: 1. Agricultural

2. Timber
 No title can be issued over any portion within this area. 3. Mineral
 This includes timber or forest lands, mineral lands, and
national parks. 1973 CONSTITUTION:
* No public land can be acquired except by a grant from the
1. Agricultural
State.
2. Industrial
LANDS OF THE PRIVATE DOMAIN 3. Commercial
4. Residential
 Refers to “land belonging to and owned by the State as 5. Resettlement
a private individual, without being devoted for public use, 6. Mineral
public service or the development of national wealth … 7. Timber/forest
similar to patrimonial properties of the State.” 8. Grazing Lands
 This is similar patrimonial properties of the State. 9. Other classes as may be provided by law
Properties of a political subdivision which are
patrimonial in character may be alienated, and may 1987 CONSTITUTION:
be acquired by others through prescription.
1. AGRICULTURAL
 Refers to the share of land area that is arable, under
 The difference between public domain and private
permanent crops, and under permanent pastures.
domain is that, public domains cannot be acquired by
prescription, while private domains may be subject to
2. FOREST/TIMBER
acquisition through prescription.
In the case of Republic vs Naguiat:
CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS UNDER THE CIVIL CODE
Parcels of land classified as forest land may actually be
PROPERTIES OF THE PUBLIC DOMINION
covered with grass or planted to crops by kaingin cultivators
or other farmers. "Forest lands" do not have to be on
 Those intended for public use or those which belong to
mountains or in out of the way places. The classification is
the State, without being for public use, intended for
merely descriptive of its legal nature or status and does not
some public service or for the development of the
national wealth. have to be descriptive of what the land actually looks like.
 Examples: roads, rivers, ports and bridges constructed 3. MINERAL LANDS
by the State, shores, roadsteads and others of similar  are those lands in which minerals exist in sufficient
character. quantity and grade to justify the necessary expenditures
PATRIMONIAL PROPERTIES OF THE STATE in extracting and utilizing such minerals.

 Properties other than the properties of the public 4. NATIONAL PARK

dominion or former properties of the public dominion that  is a park in use for conservation purposes. Often it is a
are no longer intended for public use or for public reserve of natural, semi-natural, or developed land that a
service. sovereign state declares or owns.

 Public dominions become patrimonial property upon

express government manifestation that the property is
SECTION 3, ARTICLE XII OF THE CONSTITUTION

“SEC. 3. Lands of the public domain are classified into

agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands and national
parks. Agricultural lands of the public domain may be
further classified by law according to the uses to which
they may be devoted. Alienable lands of the public
domain shall be limited to agricultural lands. Private
corporations or associations may not hold such
alienable lands of the public domain except by lease, for
a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for
not more than twenty-five years, and not to exceed one
thousand hectares in area. Citizens of the Philippines
may lease not more than five hundred hectares, or
acquire not more than twelve hectares thereof, by
purchase, homestead, or grant.”

 Agricultural lands of the public domain may be

further classified by law according to the uses to
which they may be devoted.

Republic v Naguiat, under Sec 6 of the Public Land Act:

- The prerogative in classifying public lands pertains to
administrative agencies which have been specially
tasked by the statute to do so and the courts will not
interfere with such matter. (Land Management Bureau,
DENR)

 Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited

to agricultural lands. Private corporations or
associations may not hold such alienable lands of
the public domain…
- It was aimed against undue exploitation of our public
lands and natural resources by large corporations.
CASES:
CHAVEZ VS. PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY
Ponente: Justice Antonio Carpio
FACTS:
• PEA entered into an joint venture agreement with
AMARI, a Thai-corporation, to develop the Freedom
Islands. In the said contract as well, is an agreement
the such land will be transferred to AMARI.
• Petitioner Frank J. Chavez filed as a taxpayer suit for
mandamus, writ of preliminary injunction and TRO
against the sale of the reclaimed islands praying that
the joint venture contract will be rendered null and void.
ISSUE:
• Whether or not the transfer or sale of the said reclaimed
islands to AMARI violates the Sec. 3, Article XII of the
Constitution.
RULING:
• Yes. To allow vast areas of reclaimed lands of the public
domain to be transferred to Amari as private lands will
sanction a gross violation of the constitutional ban on
private corporations from acquiring any kind of
alienable land of the public domain.
• The Supreme Court affirmed that the 157.84 hectares of
reclaimed lands comprising the Freedom Islands, now
covered by certificates of title in the name of PEA, are
alienable lands of the public domain. The 592.15
hectares of submerged areas of Manila Bay remain
inalienable natural resources of the public domain.
• The transfer (as embodied in a joint venture agreement)
to AMARI, a private corporation, ownership of 77.34
hectares of the Freedom Islands, is void for being
contrary to Section 3, Article XII of the 1987
Constitution which prohibits private corporations from
acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public
domain.
• Furthermore, since the Amended JVA also seeks to
transfer to Amari ownership of 290.156 hectares of still
submerged areas of Manila Bay, such transfer is void
for being contrary to Section 2, Article XII of the 1987
Constitution which prohibits the alienation of natural
resources other than agricultural lands of the public
domain.
REPUBLIC VS CELESTINA NAGUIAT
Ponente: Justice Cancio Garcia
FACTS:
• Respondent filed an application for registration of title to
four parcels of land located in Zambales. The applicant
alleges that she is the owner of the said parcels of land
having acquired them by purchase from its previous
owners and their predecessors-in-interest who have
been in possession thereof for more than thirty (30)
years.
• Petitioner Republic opposed on the ground that neither
the applicant nor her predecessors-in interest have been
in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession
and occupation of the lands in question, considering the
fact that she has not established that the lands in
question have been declassified from forest or timber
zone to alienable and disposable property.
RULING:
• Unclassified land cannot be acquired by adverse
occupation or possession; occupation thereof in the
concept of owner, however long, cannot ripen into
private ownership and be registered as title.
• Parcels of land classified as forest land may actually be
covered with grass or planted to crops by kaingin
cultivators or other farmers. "Forest lands" do not have
to be on mountains or in out of the way places. The
classification is merely descriptive of its legal nature or
status and does not have to be descriptive of what the
land actually looks like.
• Public forest, unless declassified and released by
positive act of the Government, are not capable of
private appropriation. Thus, the rules on confirmation of
imperfect title do not apply.
• according to Sec, 2. Article XII, all lands not appearing to
be clearly of private dominion presumptively belong to
the state.
• In the said case, SC held that the theory that the
properties in question are already alienable and
disposable cannot be sustained as it is directly against
the regalian doctrine.
• It was also emphasized that, when appropriate, the
declassification of forest and mineral lands and their
conversion to disposable and alienable lands need an
express and positive act from the government.