Coastal Land Use
 |
The Forestry Code of 1975 |
| |
Cases: |
| |
|
Forestry; Mangroves swamps; What
makes land forest land; Forest lands not capable of private ownership;
Forest lands not subject to prescription
HEIRS
OF JOSE AMUNATEGUI v. DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY
126 SCRA 69, 29 November 1983
NATURE:
Petitions for certiorari to review CA decision.
PONENTE: Gutierrez, J.
FACTS:
Heirs of Amunategui (Heirs) sought registration of a parcel of land
in Capiz. Director of Forestry opposed the application claiming
that the land was mangrove swamp which was still classified as forest
land and part of the public domain. Heirs maintained that the land
cannot be classified as forest land because it is not thickly forested
but is a mangrove swamp, and no big trees were found in ;the land,
pursuant to Secs. 1820 and 1821 for the Revised Administrative Code.
Furthermore, the land had been in actual possession of private persons
for many years, thus, said land was already private land better
adapted and more valuable for agricultural than for forest purposes.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Heirs’ contentions sufficient to classify land
as private land, and, therefore, capable of private ownership.
HELD:
No.
RATIO:
A forested area classified as forest land of the public domain does
not lose such classification simply because loggers and settlers
may have stripped it of its forest cover. Forest lands don’t
have to be on mountains or in out of the way places. Swampy areas
covered by mangrove trees, nipa palms, and other trees growing in
brackish or sea water may also be classified as forest land. The
classification is descriptive of its legal nature or status and
does not have to be descriptive of what the land actually looks
like. Unless and until the land classified as forest is released
in an official proclamation to that effect, the rules on confirmation
of imperfect title does not apply.
It was ruled in Director of Forestry v. Munoz ( 23 SCRA 1184 ) that
possession of forest lands, no matter how long, cannot ripen into
private ownership. In Republic v. Animas ( 56 SCRA 499 ), it was
stated that any patent and title to public forest land is void ab
initio.
BACK TO
TOP
Forestry; Public forests
defined in Act 926; Mangrove lands not included in timber or mineral
lands; vested rights to mangroves
TONGSON v. DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY
79 SCRA 130, 27 September 1977
NATURE:
Appeal from CFI decision.
PONENTE: Fernando, J.
FACTS:
The Director questioned the decision of the lower court granting
the application for registration of a parcel of land in favor of
Bermejo. It was shown that since 1905, Bermejo and his predecessors-in-interest
had been in continuous, adverse, notorious possession of the land
in question, in the concept of the owner. The problem arose when
it was also shown that the land was a swampland.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the land, formerly a mangrove swamp and then converted
into a fishpond, may still be considered as part of the timber domain
which is not disposable.
HELD:
No.
RATIO:
The Director’s contention that under the Administrative Code
of 1917, mangrove swamps were included in the category of public
forest. But in 1919, the Court decided the case of Jocson v. Director
of Forestry wherein it was ruled that, as in Mapa v. Insular Government,
agricultural lands as used in Act 926 means those public lands acquired
from Spain which are not timber or mineral lands. Whatever may have
been the meaning of the term forestry under the Spanish law, the
Act of Congress of 1902 classifies the public lands in the Philippines
as timber, mineral or agricultural public lands, whether they are
used as nipa swamps, manglares, fisheries or ordinary farm lands.
The definition of forestry as including manglares found in the Administrative
Code of 1917 cannot affect rights which vested prior to its enactment.
More
importantly, Justice Ostrand wrote in the Garchitorena decision
(58 Phil. 21) that it had already been decided that mangrove lands
are not forest lands in the sense that it is used in the Act of
Congress.
NOTE:
1.This case has to be differentiated from the 1983 Heirs of Jose
Amunategui v. Director of Forestry (126 SCRA 69) because this case
is about vested rights which refers to property rights that had
already been acquired before the declaration of the land as public
forest or inalienable.
2.Pursuant
to Sec. 16 (8) of the Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines,
“Strips of mangrove or swamplands at least twenty (20) meters
wide, along shorelines facing oceans, lakes & other bodies of
waters and strips of land at least twenty (20) meters wide facing
lakes” are neede for forest purposes.
BACK
TO TOP
Forest; Mangroves;
Public forest, defined.
DEMEGILLO v. DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY
8 C.A.R. (2s) 623, 18 October 1965
NATURE:
Appeal from CFI decision
PONENTE: Alvendia, J.
FACTS:
Demegillo sought to register two parcels of land which she and her
predecessors-in-interest had occupied since time immemorial. The
Director of Forestry opposed the application. At the trial, the
lone evidence of the Director was the testimony of a Bureau of Forestry
ranger who said that he found the first parcel to be covered by
nipa and mangrove species and the second parcel as partly cultivated
and partly fishpond. He concluded that the parcels of land should
be classified as public land or timber land pursuant to Sec. 1820
of the Revised Administrative Code which states that “public
forest includes xxx all unreserved public land including nipa and
mangrove swamps and all forest reserved of whatever character.”
The CFI ruled for Demegillo.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the property should be classified as public or timber
land.
HELD:
No. CFI affirmed.
RATIO:
The provision should be interpreted as that the term public forest
includes all unreserved public land, and by unreserved public lands
are included nipa and mangrove swamps of the public domain. To be
forest land, nipa and mangrove swamps must first be proven to be
part of the public domain. There are many private lands which are
nipa or mangrove swamps. It is not what is planted or to what purpose
the land is used which determines its classification into public
or private land.
NOTE:
Under Art. 45, Rep. Art 8550, “[P] ublic lands such as tidal
swamps, mangroves, marshes, foreshore lands & ponds suitable
for fishing operations shall not be disposed or alienated. “Art.
94 of the same law also penalizes any person who converts mangroves
into fishponds or for any other purposes.
BACK
TO TOP
Forestry;
Fisheries; Mangrove swamps not timber lands
ALOROY
v. DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY
13 C.A.R. (2s) 646, 27 June 1968
NATURE:
Appeal from CFI judgment
PONENTE: Serrano, J.
FACTS:
Aloroy sought registration under the Torrens System of a parcel
of swampland he inherited from his father. The Director of Forestry
opposed the application on the ground that the land is part of the
public forest and thus not subject to private ownership. It was
claimed that the land is within Block A described as timber land
within Project No. 35 in the Land Classification Map of Pangasinan.
It was pointed out however that the land was also classified in
the Map as alienable.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a mangrove swamp is capable of private ownership.
HELD:
Yes.
RATIO:
Public Land Act (CA 141) authorizes the President to classify lands
of the public domain into:
1.
Alienable or disposable lands
a.
Agricultural
b. Residential, commercial, industrial or for similar productive
purposes
c. Educational, charitable or other similar purposes
d. Reservations for town sites and for public, and quasi-public
purposes
2.
Timber lands
3.
Mineral lands
It
is true that the land in question has been classified as both timber
and alienable land. Thus, there is need to determine which of the
two classifications should prevail. It is resolved that swamps covered
with manglares or mangroves are not forest or timber lands and when
converted by man into fisheries and used as such for the statutory
period, are subject to private ownership (Montano v. Insular Government,
12 Phil. 572).
NOTE:
Please see notes under Heirs of Amunategui v. Director (126 SCRA 69)
and Tongson v. Director (79 SCRA 130).
BACK TO TOP
|
