GR 83609; (October, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 83609 October 26, 1989
DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, IBARRA BISNAR and AMELIA BISNAR, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents Ibarra and Amelia Bisnar filed an application for confirmation and registration of title over two parcels of land in Capiz, claiming ownership by inheritance and alleging possession for over fifty years. They presented evidence of cultivating the land with coconuts and converting parts into fishponds. The Director of Lands and the Director of the Bureau of Forest Development opposed the application, asserting the lots were part of the inalienable public domain, classified as forest or timberland, and thus not subject to private appropriation.
The trial court granted the application, finding the Bisnars and their predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, and adverse possession for over eighty years. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the mere classification by the Director of Forestry as timberland was insufficient without proof the land was more valuable as forest than agricultural land, invoking the Ankron doctrine.
ISSUE
Whether the subject lots, classified as forest land, may be registered under Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141 , as amended, governing confirmation of imperfect title.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts and dismissed the application for registration. The Court held that the authority to classify or reclassify public lands into alienable or disposable agricultural land is exclusively vested in the Executive Department, not the judiciary. A positive act from the government, such as an official proclamation, is required to declassify forest land and convert it into alienable agricultural land of the public domain.
Until such reclassification is officially made, the land remains forest land. Possession of forest lands, regardless of its length, can never ripen into private ownership. Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141 applies exclusively to agricultural lands of the public domain; forest lands are expressly excluded from its coverage. Consequently, the Bisnars failed to overcome the presumption that the land is part of the inalienable public domain. The cadastral court lacked jurisdiction to order registration, as forest lands are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bureau of Forestry and beyond the authority of registration courts under the Torrens System.