SEC. OF DENR VS. YAP No.
The Regalian Doctrine dictates that all
G.R. No. 167707| October 8, 2008
FACTS (GR 167707) the one in the syllabus
 Yap filed a petition for declatory relief
alleging that Proclamation No. 1801
and PTA Circular No. 3-82 raised
doubts on their right to secure titles
over their occupied lands in Boracay
Island.
 They declared that they had been in
open, continuous, exclusive, and
notorious possession and occupation
since June 12, 1945, or earlier since
time immemorial. Further, they
declared their lands for tax purposes
and paid realty taxes on them, and
since they Island was classified as a
tourist zone, it was susceptible of
private ownership.
 The Republic, through the OSG,
opposed such petition and countered
that Boracay Island was an unclassified
land of the public domain, that it
formed part of the mass of lands
classified as “public forest”, which was
not available for disposition.
FACTS (GR 173775) consolidated but not
mentioned in the syllabus
 Sacay and other landowners in Boracay
filed a petition for prohibition,
mandamus, and nullification of
Proclamation No. 1064 alleging that
the Proclamation infringed on their
“prior vested rights” over portion of
Boracay.
 The Proclamation classified Boracay
Island into 400 hectares of reserved
forest land and 628.96 of agricultural
land (alienable & disposable).
 They argued that there is no need for a
proclamation reclassifying Boracay into
agricultural land. Being classified as
neither mineral nor timber land, the
island is deemed agricultural pursuant
to Philippine Bill of 1902; thus, their
possession in the concept of owner for
the required period entitled them to
judicial confirmation of imperfect title.
 OSG contended that Boracay is an
unclassified forest land pursuant to PD
No. 705, and being such, cannot be the
subject of judicial confirmation of
imperfect title. It is only the executive
department, not the courts, which has
authority to reclassify lands of the
public domain into alienable and
disposable lands.
LOWER COURT RULING
The RTC upheld respondents' right to have
their occupied lands titled in their name. The
appellate court affirmed in toto.
ISSUE
W/N private claimants have a right to secure
titles over their occupied portions in Boracay
RULING
lands of the public domain belong to the State,
that the State is the source of any asserted
right to ownership of land and charged with the
conservation of such patrimony. All lands not
otherwise appearing to be clearly within private
ownership are presumed to belong to the
State.
In the case at bar, no such proclamation,
executive order, administrative action, report,
statute, or certification was presented to the
Court. Prior to President Arroyo’s Proclamation
No. 1064 (2006), Boracay was an unclassified
land of public domain. Absent such well-nigh
incontrovertible evidence, the Court cannot
accept the submission that lands occupied by
private claimants were already open to
disposition before 2006. Matters of land
classification or reclassification cannot be
assumed. They call for proof. Classification of
public lands is the exclusive prerogative of the
Executive Department, through the Office of
the President. Courts have no authority to do
so. Absent such classification, the land remains
unclassified until released and rendered open
to disposition
However, all is not lost for the claimants. While
they may not be eligible to apply for judicial
confirmation of imperfect title, this does not
denote their automatic ouster from the
residential, commercial, and other areas they
possess. Neither will this mean the loss of their
substantial investments on their occupied
alienable lands. Lack of title does not
necessarily mean lack of right to possess.
They can take steps to preserve or protect
their possession. For another, they may look
into other modes of applying for original
registration of title, such as by homestead or
sales patent, subject to the conditions imposed
by law.
More realistically, Congress may enact a law to
entitle private claimants to acquire title to their
occupied lots or to exempt them from certain
requirements under the present land laws.
Note: The case discussed about the history of
the Regalian Doctrine (Spanish, American era),
the applicable laws and jurisprudence. You
might want to quickly read thru it just in case.