G.R. No. 167707 & G.R. No. 173775; October 8, 2008
Case Parties:

THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DENR-REGION VI, REGIONAL TECHNICAL DIRECTOR FOR LANDS, LANDS MANAGEMENT BUREAU, REGION VI, PROVINCIAL ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICER OF KALIBO, AKLAN, REGISTER OF DEEDS, DIRECTOR OF LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM SECRETARY, DIRECTOR OF PHILIPPINE TOURISM AUTHORITY, petitioners,
vs.
MAYOR JOSE S. YAP, LIBERTAD TALAPIAN, MILA Y. SUMNDAD, and ANICETO YAP, in their behalf and in behalf of all those similarly situated, respondents.
x——————————————————–x
DR. ORLANDO SACAY and WILFREDO GELITO, joined by THE LANDOWNERS OF BORACAY SIMILARLY SITUATED NAMED IN A LIST, ANNEX “A” OF THIS PETITION, petitioners,
vs.
THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, THE REGIONAL TECHNICAL DIRECTOR FOR LANDS, LANDS MANAGEMENT BUREAU, REGION VI, PROVINCIAL ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICER, KALIBO, AKLAN, respondents.

FACTS

These are consolidated cases concerning the right of occupants to secure titles over lands in Boracay Island. In G.R. No. 167707, respondents-claimants (Mayor Jose S. Yap, et al.) filed a petition for declaratory relief with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kalibo, Aklan. They alleged that Proclamation No. 1801 (1978), which declared Boracay a tourist zone and marine reserve, and its implementing PTA Circular No. 3-82 (1982), raised doubts on their right to secure titles. They claimed open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of their lands since June 12, 1945, or earlier, and had declared and paid taxes on these lands. They argued the island, as a tourist zone, was susceptible to private ownership under the Public Land Act. The Republic, through the OSG, opposed, contending Boracay was an unclassified public forest land under the Revised Forestry Code (PD No. 705) and thus not alienable and disposable. The RTC ruled in favor of the claimants, declaring the proclamation and circular posed no legal obstacle to titling. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.
In G.R. No. 173775, petitioners-claimants (Dr. Orlando Sacay, Wilfredo Gelito, et al.) filed an original petition for prohibition, mandamus, and nullification after President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Proclamation No. 1064 on May 22, 2006. This proclamation classified Boracay into 400 hectares of reserved forest land and 628.96 hectares of agricultural land (alienable and disposable). The claimants argued this infringed on their “prior vested rights,” as they had possessed and developed their lots since time immemorial. They contended Boracay was already agricultural land under old laws (Philippine Bill of 1902, Act No. 926), making a new proclamation unnecessary. The OSG countered that Boracay was public forest, requiring a positive executive act to reclassify it as alienable and disposable.

ISSUE

The principal issue is whether claimants have a right to secure titles to their occupied lands in Boracay Island, and whether the relevant proclamations (No. 1801 and No. 1064) pose any legal obstacle to such titling. Specifically, the core legal question is the correct classification of Boracay Island—whether it is alienable and disposable agricultural land or inalienable public forest land—prior to Proclamation No. 1064.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that Boracay Island was an unclassified land of the public domain prior to Proclamation No. 1064. It was not alienable and disposable agricultural land. Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands not clearly appearing to be privately owned are presumed to belong to the State. For public lands to be classified as alienable and disposable, there must be a positive act from the government, such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order, officially reclassifying the land. The Court held that Proclamation No. 1801 (1978) did not convert Boracay into an agricultural land; it merely declared it a tourist zone. The island remained part of the public forest under the Revised Forestry Code (PD No. 705). Consequently, occupants could not acquire imperfect titles under the Public Land Act because the land was not yet declared alienable. The Court emphasized that possession, no matter how long, cannot ripen into ownership over inalienable public land.
However, the Court upheld the validity of Proclamation No. 1064 (2006), which for the first time classified specific portions of Boracay as agricultural (alienable and disposable) and others as forest land. The proclamation was a legitimate exercise of executive prerogative. With this classification, occupants of lands within the alienable and disposable areas may now apply for judicial confirmation of imperfect title, provided they meet all requirements of the law, including possession since June 12, 1945. The Court also noted that certain lots were already titled as early as 1933, proving parts of the island were already alienable and disposable before. The petitions in G.R. No. 167707 and G.R. No. 173775 were accordingly resolved in light of these principles.