G.R. No. 107764 ; October 4, 2002
EDNA COLLADO, BERNARDINA TAWAS, JORETO C. TORRES, JOSE AMO, SERGIO L. MONTEALEGRE, VICENTE C. TORRES, JOSEPH L. NUÑEZ, GLORIA SERRANO, DANILO FABREGAS, FERNANDO T. TORRES, LUZ G. TUBUNGBANUA, CARIDAD T. TUTANA, JOSE C. TORRES, JR., IMELDA CAYLALUAD, ROSALIE TUTANA, NORMA ASTORIAS, MYRNA M. LANCION, NORBERTO CAMILOTE, CECILIA MACARANAS, PEDRO BRIONES, REMEDIOS BANTIGUE, DANTE L. MONTEALEGRE, AIDA T. GADON, ARMANDO T. TORRES and FIDELITO ECO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, thru the Director of Lands, respondents, BOCKASANJO ISF AWARDEES ASSOCIATION, INC., LITA MENDOZA, MORADO PREFIDIGNO, TERESITA CRUZ and CALOMA MOISES, respondents/intervernors.

FACTS

On April 25, 1985, petitioner Edna T. Collado filed an application for registration of a parcel of land (Lot) with an approximate area of 120.0766 hectares situated in Barangay San Isidro, Antipolo, Rizal, covered by Survey Plan Psu-162620. The attached technical description stated the survey was inside the “IN-12 Mariquina Watershed.” An Amended Application was later filed to include additional co-applicants. The Republic of the Philippines and the Municipality of Antipolo filed oppositions. Petitioners alleged open, public, notorious, and continuous possession in the concept of owner since time immemorial, tracing their title through nine transfers of rights from their earliest known predecessor-in-interest, Sesinando Leyva, who had the property surveyed in his name on March 22, 1902. They also declared the Lot for taxation and paid real estate taxes. During hearings, oppositors failed to present evidence despite opportunities. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo, Branch 71, rendered a Decision dated January 30, 1991, confirming petitioners’ imperfect title, finding they had presented sufficient evidence and that the property, even if within the Marikina Watershed, was subject to “private rights.” The RTC also noted a Certification from the Bureau of Forest Development dated March 18, 1980, stating the area was excluded from the Marikina Watershed by Proclamation No. 1283 and Proclamation No. 1637. After petitioners moved for issuance of a decree, alleging the decision had become final, the RTC issued an order directing the Land Registration Authority to issue the decree. The Solicitor General filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment with the Court of Appeals on August 6, 1991, arguing there was no clear showing the Lot had been classified as alienable and disposable. Bockasanjo ISF Awardees Association, Inc., holders of stewardship certificates from the DENR, were allowed to intervene, claiming the Lot was inalienable as part of the Marikina Watershed Reservation and that they were the actual occupants under the Integrated Social Forestry Program.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly declared null and void the RTC decision confirming petitioners’ imperfect title over the Lot.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly declared the RTC decision null and void. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The core issue was whether the Lot was part of the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. The burden of proof was on the applicants to show that the land was already classified as alienable and disposable or had a private character before the filing of the application. Petitioners failed to discharge this burden. The evidence, including the survey plan’s technical description stating the Lot was inside the Marikina Watershed, indicated it was part of a forest reservation. Presidential Proclamation No. 1283 (1974) and Proclamation No. 1637 (1977), which petitioners relied on, established the Boso-boso/Lungsod Silangan Townsite Reservation but did not automatically reclassify the land as alienable and disposable; such reclassification requires a positive act of the government. The Certification from the Bureau of Forest Development (Exhibit “K”) was insufficient as it was not certified by the proper DENR official and did not constitute the required positive act of reclassification. Petitioners’ possession, no matter how long, could not ripen into ownership unless the land was first declared alienable and disposable. The land being within a watershed reservation, which is for public use and part of the inalienable public domain, further precluded private appropriation. The RTC decision was void for lack of jurisdiction as it confirmed title over inalienable land. The Supreme Court also upheld the timeliness of the Solicitor General’s petition for annulment and the propriety of the intervention by the ISF awardees.