G.R. No. 69969 December 20, 1989
ANTONIO L. TOTTOC, petitioner, vs. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and SATURNINO DOCTOR, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Antonio Tottoc applied for and was granted a series of pasture permits and a lease agreement by the Bureau of Forestry, covering 78.6 hectares of public forest land in Nueva Vizcaya starting in 1949. He occupied and fenced the area. Private respondent Saturnino Doctor, a neighbor, later applied for a homestead patent over a portion of the same land. He secured certifications from the Bureau of Forestry and Bureau of Lands that the land was alienable and disposable. A homestead patent was subsequently issued to Doctor, leading to the issuance of Original Certificate of Title No. P-3428 in his name in 1968. However, multiple relocation surveys conducted by forestry officials, including one requested by Tottoc in 1966 and another requested by Doctor himself in 1971, consistently found that the land titled to Doctor was within the forest zone and overlapped with Tottoc’s pasture lease area. The foresters recommended the nullification of the patent and title over the forested portion. Doctor filed an action for recovery of possession against Tottoc. The trial court dismissed the complaint, but the Intermediate Appellate Court reversed, upholding Doctor’s title and ordering Tottoc to vacate.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether a homestead patent and a Torrens title issued over land classified as forest land are valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court and reinstated the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint, with modifications. The Court held that the homestead patent and the consequent Torrens title issued to Doctor were void with respect to the portion of the land found to be within the forest zone. The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental principle that forest lands are part of the public domain and are not alienable or disposable. The power to classify public lands as alienable and disposable resides solely in the President, upon recommendation of the appropriate department head. A certification from a bureau official, such as the one procured by Doctor, does not constitute a positive act of classification. Consequently, no public land patent can be validly issued over forest land. The Court emphasized that possession of forest land, no matter how long, cannot ripen into private ownership or justify the issuance of a title. Since the land remained classified as forest land, the patent and title issued were null and void. The Court also found that Tottoc, as a pasture lease permittee in possession, had the legal personality to challenge the validity of Doctor’s title as a defense in the recovery suit, as it directly affected his possessory rights. The award of damages and attorney’s fees to Doctor was deleted for lack of basis.