G.R. No. L-21814 July 15, 1975
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner, vs. MELECIO ABANZADO, ET AL., claimants. THE DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY, claimant-appellant, vs. PERPETUO SILVA, ET AL., claimants-appellees.

FACTS

In Cadastral Case No. N-4, the cadastral court adjudicated Lot No. 6034 to spouses Perpetuo Silva and Juana Divinagracia. The Director of Forestry, alleging the lot was a major portion of the Bais Communal Forest and thus non-disposable public land, filed an amended petition for review of the judgment before the issuance of a decree. He contended he was not duly notified of the hearings and was thus unable to oppose the registration. The private respondents opposed, arguing absence of extrinsic fraud and asserting estoppel or laches.
The lower court denied the petition, grounding its order on the lack of actual or extrinsic fraud. It disregarded the Director’s plea for a hearing to present evidence on the land’s character as forest land. A motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting a direct appeal to the Supreme Court on constitutional and legal questions involving due process and the inalienability of forest resources.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in denying the Director of Forestry’s petition for review without conducting a hearing to receive evidence on his claim that the land is part of a communal forest and thus non-disposable.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the appealed order. The ruling is anchored on two fundamental principles: procedural due process and the substantive law on inalienability of forest lands.
First, on procedural due process, the Court, citing the controlling precedent in Adorable v. Director of Forestry, held that while the Director was not entitled to personal notice of the cadastral hearing, he was entitled to be heard on his motion for reconsideration or petition for review. The lower court’s summary dismissal without receiving evidence deprived him of this right. The Court emphasized that when a state agency like the Bureau of Forestry asserts that land is part of the public forest, the court must conduct a hearing to ascertain the truth of this claim. Possession, however long, cannot convert forest land into private property, and such determination is crucial to the court’s jurisdiction.
Second, on the substantive issue, the Court reaffirmed the doctrine that forest or timber lands are part of the inalienable public domain. The constitutional policy of conserving the national patrimony mandates that such lands cannot be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. If the Director’s allegations are proven, the land would be beyond the cadastral court’s power to register. Therefore, the lower court was obligated to hear the evidence to segregate any forest portion from the decree. Its failure to do so was a reversible error. The case was remanded for further proceedings to allow the Director of Forestry to present his evidence.