DISCOURSE/SUMMARY:

 One who actually owned the land for many years cannot be deprived of it for
failure to comply with certain ceremonies prescribed either by the acts of the
Philippine Commission or by the Spanish law. (Abaoag v. Director of
Lands, 45 Phil. 518)

 The Regalian Doctrine which forms the basis of our land laws, in fact, all
governing natural resources is revered and long standing principle. With
respect to the case of Funtiliar, there should be a positive act from the
Government to declare the land as alienable and disposable such as an
official proclamation declassifying alienable and public land into disposable
land o agricultural and other purposes. The land being occupied by the
Funtiliar was declared alienable and disposable and therefore, he land
possessed and cultivated by the Funtiliar family and their predecessors can
now be registered as a private land under their names. (Director of Lands v.
Funtiliar, 142 SCRA 57)

 The standing presumption is that all lands belong to the public domain of the
State, unless acquired from the Government either by purchase or by grant,
except lands possessed by an occupant and his predecessors since the time of
immemorial, for such possession would justify the presumption that the land
had never been part of the public domain, or that it had been private property
even before the Spanish conquest. (Oh cho vs. Director of Lands 75 Phil.
890 [1946])

 “Land remains unclassified land until it is released therefrom and rendered

open to disposition. Our adherence to the Regalian doctrine subjects all
agricultural, timber, and mineral lands to the dominion of the State. Thus,
before any land may be declassified from the forest group and converted
into alienable or disposable land for agricultural or other purposes, there
must be a positive act from the government.”

The Supreme Court then revitalized the Regalian Doctrine. The State then is
the owner of an unclassified land. Even if the land neither was nor declared
forest land but if it is unclassified, presumption belongs to the State.

The Supreme Court then emphasized that “even rules on the confirmation of
imperfect titles do not apply unless and until the land classified as forest land
 is released in an official proclamation to that effect so that it may form part
of the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain.”

However, when it comes to protecting the constitutional rights of people and

of the next generation to come, the State may, by using the Regalian
Doctrine “regulate the utilization and disposition of forest resources to the
end that public welfare is promoted.” (Sunbeam Convenience Foods Inc.
v. Court of Appeals, 181 SCRA 445 (1990)

 The State is presumed to be the owner of the natural wealth. As the Regalian
doctrine pointed out, the sovereign, which is the State, has the power of
dominium over all lands within its territory.

That is why the State has its own proceedings regarding lands to monitor its
disposal of public lands or to see to it that the natural resources being
discovered by private entities benefits the state. In the case of Miners
Association of the Philippines Inc. v Honorable Factoran Jr, the
Supreme Court stated that:

“Section 6 of Executive Order No. 279 specifically authorizes said official to

promulgate such supplementary rules and regulations as may be necessary to
effectively implement the provisions thereof. Moreover, the subject sought
to be governed and regulated by the questioned orders is germane to the
objects and purposes of Executive Order No. 279 specifically issued to carry
out the mandate of Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution.”

Because of the decision made by the Supreme Court, the mandate that was
imposed by the 1987 Constitution on the Regalian Doctrine was made into
order. It already became a safeguard to the State’s natural resources or
natural wealth.

Moreover, the decision laid down in the above – mentioned case

strengthened past decisions of the Supreme Court when it comes to
ownership of land by private individuals and that there is a process to be
rigorously followed. Since the State can be the only one to dispose its lands,
the State therefor has the prerogative to craft its own guidelines.

However, in the case of Gold Creek Mining Corporation v. Rodriguez,

the provisions of the Regalian Doctrine on mining claims had been slightly
shaken when the Supreme Court decide onto the matter to wit:
 “The mining claim under consideration no longer formed part of the public
domain when the provisions of Article XII of the Constitution became
effective, it does not come within the prohibition against the alienation of
natural resources; and the petitioner has the right to a patent therefor upon
compliance with the terms and conditions prescribed by law.”

The decision slightly diminished the mining claim provision of the Regalian
Doctrine not because of the reason that it is unconstitutional but because of
technicality. The Supreme Court then stated that the mining claim provision
under the Regalian Doctrine was misunderstood.

 The case of Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 160 SCRA 228 (1988) is an
application of the Regalian doctrine which, as its name implies, is intended
for the benefit of the State, not of private persons. The rule simply reserves
to the State all minerals that may be found in public and even private land
devoted to "agricultural, industrial, commercial, residential or (for) any
purpose other than mining." Thus, if a person is the owner of agricultural
land in which minerals are discovered, his ownership of such land does not
give him the right to extract or utilize the said minerals without the
permission of the State to which such minerals belong.