G.R. No. L-46048 November 29, 1988
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, MIGUEL MARCELO, CELIA ZURBITO, HEIRS OF JOSE ZURBITO, respondents.

FACTS

Miguel Marcelo applied for the registration of two parcels of land totaling 116.8441 hectares in Masbate. The Director of Forestry opposed, asserting that approximately 22 hectares of the land formed part of Timberland Block F, classified as forest land per a certification dated December 22, 1924. The private respondents traced their claim of possession to Jose Zurbito and his wife Soledad, who began acquiring and consolidating small adjoining parcels in 1909. They cultivated the land, planted thousands of coconut trees, developed a fishpond, and possessed it openly and adversely. Upon Jose’s death, his heirs continued possession. The properties were eventually sold to applicant Marcelo through a pacto de retro sale in 1944, with ownership consolidating in him by 1954 after the vendors failed to repurchase.
The trial court granted the application for registration, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The government, through the Solicitor General, appealed, arguing the land was inalienable forest land and noting a portion had been subject to a fishpond lease agreement with the Bureau of Fisheries, which it claimed demonstrated the land’s character as part of the public domain.

ISSUE

Whether the subject 22-hectare portion, certified as timberland in 1924, is registrable in favor of the private respondents despite such official classification.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, ruling the land is registrable. The legal logic hinges on the principle that a prior vested right of possession in good faith cannot be defeated by a subsequent state classification. The Court found that the possession by the Zurbito spouses commenced in 1909, which was long before the Director of Lands’ certification of the area as timberland on December 22, 1924. This open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession in the concept of an owner for decades perfected an imperfect title. The government retains the right to classify public lands, but this right is not absolute when private interests have already attached through possession ante-dating the classification. The Court cited Ankron vs. Government, which held that the state may reserve public land for forestry, “unless private interests have intervened before such reservation is made.” Here, private interests had unquestionably intervened. The existence of a past fishpond lease agreement was deemed irrelevant, as the Bureau of Fisheries has no authority to administer such lands until they are officially released from the public domain, and the act of a lessee could not bind the applicant. Thus, the applicant successfully overcame the presumption of state ownership by proving a registrable title acquired by prescription.