SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 95608. January 21, 1997]

SPOUSES IGNACIO PAO!O an" #RINI$A$ PASCUA, an" CAR!EN
PAO!O %$A. $E &UENA%EN#URA,petitioners, vs. #'E
'ONORA&E COUR# O( APPEAS, #'E REPU&IC O( #'E
P'IIPPINES, (AUS#INO J. PER(EC#O, RA(() SAN#IAN,
&O) ARIA$O, OREN*O &ROCAES, SA%A$OR $OE, an"
o+,-r $OES, respondents.
$ E C I S I O N
RO!ERO, J..
The issue in the case at bar pertains to ownership of 15 parcels of land in Tiwi,
Alba which for! part of the "Tiwi #ot Sprin$ National %ar&'" The facts of the case are
as follows'
On (une 1), 1*1), then +o,ernor +eneral of the %hilippine Islands, -illia!
Ca!eron .orbes issued E/ecuti,e Order No' 01 which reser,ed for pro,incial par&
purposes so!e 001,5)1 s2uare !eters of land situated in 3arrio Na$a, 4unicipalit of
Tiwi, %ro,ince of Alba pursuant to the pro,isions of Act 506 of the %hilippine
Co!!ission'
718
Subse2uentl, the then Court of .irst Instance of Alba, 15th (udicial District, 9nited
States of A!erica, ordered the re$istration of 15 parcels of land co,ered b E/ecuti,e
Order No' 01 in the na!e of Die$o %alo!o on Dece!ber *, 1*15:
7;8
Dece!ber ;6,
1*15:
7)8
and (anuar 1<, 1*1<'
708
Die$o %alo!o donated these parcels of land consistin$
of <0,6<; s2uare !eters which were alle$edl co,ered b Ori$inal Certificates of Title
Nos' 51), 15*, 1<5 and 1<)
758
to his heirs, herein petitioners, I$nacio and Car!en
%alo!o two !onths before his death in April 1*)<'
758
Clai!in$ that the aforesaid ori$inal certificates of title were lost durin$ the (apanese
occupation, I$nacio %alo!o filed a petition for reconstitution with the Court of .irst
Instance of Alba on 4a )1, 1*51'
7<8
The =e$ister of Deeds of Alba issued Transfer
Certificates of Title Nos' )*11, )*1;, )*1) and )*10 so!eti!e in October 1*5)'
768
On (ul 11, 1*50 %resident =a!on 4a$sasa issued %rocla!ation No' 0<
con,ertin$ the area e!braced b E/ecuti,e Order No' 01 into the "Tiwi #ot Sprin$
National %ar&," under the control, !ana$e!ent, protection and ad!inistration of the
defunct Co!!ission of %ar&s and -ildlife, now a di,ision of the 3ureau of .orest
De,elop!ent' The area was ne,er released as alienable and disposable portion of the
public do!ain and, therefore, is neither susceptible to disposition under the pro,isions
of the %ublic >and >aw ?CA 101@ nor re$istrable under the >and =e$istration Act ?Act
No' 0*5@'
The %alo!os, howe,er, continued in possession of the propert, paid real estate
ta/es thereon
7*8
and introduced i!pro,e!ents b plantin$ rice, bananas, pandan and
coconuts' On April 6, 1*<1, petitioner Car!en ,da' de 3uena,entura and spouses
I$nacio %alo!o and Trinidad %ascual !ort$a$ed the parcels of land co,ered b TCT
)*11, )*1;, )*1) and )*10 to $uarantee a loan of %;11,111 fro! the 3an& of the
%hilippine Islands'
In 4a <, 1*<0 petitioner Car!en ,da' de 3uena,entura and spouses I$nacio
%alo!o and Trinidad %ascual filed Ci,il Case No' TA10) before the then Court of .irst
Instance of Alba for InBunction with da!a$es a$ainst pri,ate respondents .austino ('
%erfecto, =aff Santillan, 3o Ariado, >orenCo 3rocales, Sal,ador Doe and other Does
who are all e!ploees of the 3ureau of .orest De,elop!ent who entered the land
co,ered b TCT No' )*1) andDor TCT )*10 and cut down ba!boos thereat, totall
le,elin$ no less than 0 $ro,es worth not less than %;,111'11'
On October 11, 1*<0, the =epublic of the %hilippines filed Ci,il Case No' TA1<5 for
annul!ent and cancellation of Certificates of Title in,ol,in$ the 15 parcels of land
re$istered in the na!e of the petitioners and subBect of Ci,il Case TA10)' I!pleaded
with the petitioners as defendants were the 3an& of the %hilippine Islands, >e$aCpi
3ranch and the =e$ister of Deeds of Alba'
The case a$ainst the 3an& of %hilippine Islands was dis!issed because the loan
of %;11,111 with the 3an& was alread paid and the !ort$a$e in its fa,or cancelled'
A Boint trial of Ci,il Case TA10) and TA1<5 was conducted upon a$ree!ent of the
parties and on (ul )1, 1*65, the trial court rendered the followin$ decisionE
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:
IN CIVI C!"E No# $%&'(, in )*+or o) the de)end*nts *nd *g*inst the p,*inti))s,
dismissing the comp,*int )or injunction *nd d*m*ges, *s it is hereby -I".I""E-#
Costs *g*inst the p,*inti))s#
In CIVI C!"E No# $%&/0, in )*+or o) the p,*inti))s *nd *g*inst the de)end*nts:
1&2 -ec,*ring nu,, *nd +oid *nd no )orce *nd e))ect the Order d*ted "eptember &',
&34(, *s 5e,, *s the Origin*, Certi)ic*te o) $it,es Nos# &4(,
6&78
&03, &/( *nd &/0 *nd
$r*ns)er Certi)ic*tes o) $it,es Nos# (3&&, $%(3&9, $%(3&(, *nd $%(3&', *,, o) the
Register o) -eeds o) !,b*y *nd *,, tr*ns*ctions b*sed on s*id tit,es#
192 For)eiting in )*+or o) the p,*inti)) :o+ernment *ny *nd *,, impro+ements on the
,*nds in ;uestion th*t *re )ound therein *nd introduced by the de)end*nts<
1(2 -ec,*ring ot Nos# &, 9, (, ', 4, 0, /, =, 3, &7, && *nd &9, >,*n II%3933 *nd ots &,
9&,
6&&8
( *nd ' o) >,*n II%3974 *s p*rt o) the $i5i Hot "pring N*tion*, >*r?<
1'2 *nd Fin*,,y, the Register o) -eeds o) !,b*y is hereby ordered to c*nce, the *,,eged
Origin*, Certi)ic*tes o) $it,es Nos# 4&(, &03, &/( *nd &/0, $r*ns)er Certi)ic*tes o)
$it,e Nos# $%(3&&, $%(3&9, $%(3&( *nd $%(3&'#
Costs *g*inst the de)end*nts#
"o Ordered#"
6&98
The court a quo in rulin$ for the =epublic found no sufficient proof that the %alo!os
ha,e established propert ri$hts o,er the parcels of land in 2uestion before the Treat of
%aris which ended the SpanishAA!erican -ar at the end of the centur' The court
further stated that assu!in$ that the decrees of the Court of .irst Instance of Alba
were reall issued, the %alo!os obtained no ri$ht at all o,er the %roperties because
these were issued onl when E/ecuti,e Order No' 01 was alread in force' At this point,
we ta&e note that althou$h the +eodetic En$ineer of the 3ureau of >ands appointed as
one of the Co!!issioners in the relocation sur,e of the properties stated in his
rea!ended report that of the ),)60 s2uare !eters co,ered b >ot ;, %lan IIA*;15, onl
1,*<5 s2uare !eters fall within the reser,ation area,
71)8
the =TC ordered TCT )*1)
co,erin$ the entire >ot ;1 ?sic@ %lan IIA*;15 cancelled'
The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals which affir!ed in toto the findin$s
of the lower Court: hence this petition raisin$ the followin$ issuesE
&# $he respondent Court o) !ppe*,s committed gr*+e *buse o) discretion in *))irming
in toto the decision o) the ,o5er court#
9# $he dec,*r*tion o) nu,,ity o) the origin*, certi)ic*tes o) tit,e *nd subse;uent tr*ns)er
certi)ic*tes o) tit,es o) the petitioners o+er the properties in ;uestion is contr*ry to ,*5
*nd jurisprudence on the m*tter#
(# $he )or)eiture o) *,, impro+ements introduced by the petitioners in the premises in
)*+or o) the go+ernment is *g*inst our e@isting ,*5 *nd jurisprudence#
The issues raised essentiall boil down to whether or not the alle$ed ori$inal
certificate of titles issued pursuant to the order of the Court of .irst Instance in 1*15A
1*1< and the subse2uent TCTs issued in 1*5) pursuant to the petition for reconstitution
are ,alid'
%etitioners contend that the Treat of %aris which ended the SpanishAA!erican -ar
at the end of the 1*th centur reco$niCed the propert ri$hts of Spanish and .ilipino
citiCens and the A!erican $o,ern!ent had no inherent power to confiscate properties of
pri,ate citiCens and declare the! part of an &ind of $o,ern!ent reser,ation' The
alle$e that their predecessors in interest ha,e been in open, ad,erse and continuous
possession of the subBect lands for ;1A51 ears prior to their re$istration in 1*15A1*1<'
#ence, the reser,ation of the lands for pro,incial purposes in 1*1) b then +o,ernorA
$eneral .orbes was tanta!ount to depri,ation of pri,ate propert without due process of
law'
In support of their clai!, the petitioners presented copies of a nu!ber of decisions
of the Court of .irst Instance of Alba, 15th (udicial District of the 9nited States of
A!erica which state that the predecessors in interest of the petitionersF father Die$o
%alo!o, were in continuous, open and ad,erse possession of the lands fro! ;1 to 51
ears at the ti!e of their re$istration in 1*15'
-e are not con,inced'
The %hilippines passed to the Spanish Crown b disco,er and con2uest in the
15th centur' 3efore the Treat of %aris in April 11, 16**, our lands, whether a$ricultural,
!ineral or forest were under the e/clusi,e patri!on and do!inion of the Spanish
Crown' #ence, pri,ate ownership of land could onl be ac2uired throu$h roal
concessions which were docu!ented in ,arious for!s, such as ?1@ Titulo Real or =oal
+rant," ?;@ Concession Especial or Special +rant, ?)@ Titulo de Compra or Title b
%urchase and ?0@ Informacion Posesoria or %ossessor Infor!ation title obtained under
the Spanish 4ort$a$e >aw or under the =oal Decree of (anuar ;5, 166*'
9nfortunatel, no proof was presented that the petitionersF predecessors in interest
deri,ed title fro! an old Spanish $rant' %etitioners placed !uch reliance upon the
declarations in E/pediente No' 5, +'>'='O' =ecord Decision No' *6;1, dated (anuar
1<, 1*1<: E/pediente No' 5, +'>'='O' =ecord No' *6;1, dated Dece!ber ;6, 1*15:
E/pediente No' <, +'>'='O' =ecord No' *6;;, dated Dece!ber *, 1*15: E/pediente No'
6, +'>'='O' =ecord No' *6;), dated Dece!ber ;6, 1*15 and E/pediente No' 11,
+'>'='O' =ecord No' *656, dated Dece!ber *, 1*15 of the Court of .irst Instance of
Alba, 15th (udicial District of the 9nited States of A!erica presided b (ud$e Isidro
%aredes that their predecessors in interest were in open, ad,erse and continuous
possession of the subBect lands for ;1A51 ears'
7108
The aforesaid "decisions" of the Court
of .irst Instance, howe,er, were not si$ned b the Bud$e but were !erel certified
copies of notification to Die$o %alo!o bearin$ the si$nature of the cler& of court'
4oreo,er, despite clai!s b the petitioners that their predecessors in interest were
in open , ad,erse and continuous possession of the lands for ;1 to 51 ears prior to
their re$istration in 1*15A1*1<, the lands were sur,eed onl in Dece!ber 1*1), the
,er sa!e ear the were ac2uired b Die$o %alo!o' Curiousl, in .ebruar 1*1) or 11
!onths before the lands were sur,eed for Die$o %alo!o, the $o,ern!ent had alread
sur,eed the area in preparation for its reser,ation for pro,incial par& purposes' If the
petitionersF predecessors in interest were indeed in possession of the lands for a
nu!ber of ears prior to their re$istration in 1*15A1*1<, the would ha,e undoubtedl
&nown about the inclusion of these properties in the reser,ation in 1*1)' It certainl is a
trifle late at this point to ar$ue that the $o,ern!ent had no ri$ht to include these
properties in the reser,ation when the 2uestion should ha,e been raised 6) ears a$o'
As re$ards the petitionersF contention that inas!uch as the obtained the titles
without $o,ern!ent opposition, the $o,ern!ent is now estopped fro! 2uestionin$ the
,alidit of the certificates of title which were $ranted' As correctl pointed out b the
respondent Court of Appeals, the principle of estoppel does not operate a$ainst the
+o,ern!ent for the act of its a$ents'
7158
Assu!in$ that the decrees of the Court of .irst Instance were reall issued, the
lands are still not capable of appropriation' The ad,erse possession which !a be the
basis of a $rant of title in confir!ation of i!perfect title cases applies onl to alienable
lands of the public do!ain'
There is no 2uestion that the lands in the case at bar were not alienable lands of the
public do!ain' As testified b the District .orester, records in the 3ureau of .orestr
show that the subBect lands were ne,er declared as alienable and disposable and
subBect to pri,ate alienation prior to 1*1) up to the present'
7158
4oreo,er, as part of the
reser,ation for pro,incial par& purposes, the for! part of the forest Cone'
It is ele!entar in the law $o,ernin$ natural resources that forest land cannot be
owned b pri,ate persons' It is not re$istrable and possession thereof, no !atter how
len$th, cannot con,ert it into pri,ate propert,
71<8
unless such lands are reclassified and
considered disposable and alienable'
Neither do the ta/ receipts which were presented in e,idence pro,e ownership of
the parcels of land inas!uch as the wei$ht of authorit is that ta/ declarations are not
conclusi,e proof of ownership in land re$istration cases'
7168
#a,in$ disposed of the issue of ownership, we now co!e to the !atter re$ardin$
the forfeiture of i!pro,e!ents introduced on the subBect lands' It bears e!phasis that
E/ecuti,e Order No' 01 was alread in force at the ti!e the lands in 2uestion were
sur,eed for Die$o %alo!o' %etitioners also apparentl &new that the subBect lands
were co,ered under the reser,ation when the filed a petition for reconstitution of the
lost ori$inal certificates of title inas!uch as the blueprint of Sur,e -or& Order Nu!ber
;1<61 of %lan IIA*;** appro,ed b the Chief of the >and =e$istration Office Enri2ue
Alta,as in 1*5) as a true and correct cop of the Ori$inal %lan No' IIA*;** filed in the
3ureau of >ands dated Septe!ber 11, 1*06
71*8
contains the followin$ note, "in conflict
with pro,incial reser,ation'"
7;18
In an case, petitioners are presu!ed to &now the law and
the failure of the $o,ern!ent to oppose the re$istration of the lands in 2uestion is no
Bustification for the petitioners to plead $ood faith in introducin$ i!pro,e!ents on the
lots'
.inall, since 1,*<5 s2uare !eters of the ),)60 s2uare !eters co,ered b TCT
)*1) fall within the reser,ation, TCT )*1) should be annulled onl with respect to the
aforesaid area' Inas!uch as the ba!boo $ro,es le,eled in TCT )*1) and subBect of
Ci,il Case TA10),
7;18
were within the peri!eter of the national par&,
7;;8
no pronounce!ent
as to da!a$es is in order'
/'ERE(ORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereb A..I=4ED with the
!odification that TCT )*1) be annulled with respect to the 1,*<5 s2uare !eter area
fallin$ within the reser,ation Cone'
SO OR$ERE$.
Regalado, (Chairman), Puno, Mendoza, and Torres, Jr, JJ, concur
718
Act 506 of the %hilippine Co!!ission entitled, "An Act authoriCin$ the +o,ernorA$eneral to reser,e for
ci,il public purposes and fro! sale or settle!ent, an part of the public do!ain not appropriated
b law for special public purposes, unless otherwise directed b law and e/tendin$ pro,isions of
Act Nu!bered 5;< so that public lands desired to be reser,ed b the Insular +o,ern!ent for
public use, or pri,ate lands desired to be purchased b the Insular +o,ern!ent for such uses,
!a be brou$ht under the operation of >and =e$istration'"
7;8
As shown b E/pediente No' <, +>=O =ecord *6;; which beca!e the basis for the issuance of alle$ed
OCT No' 1*55 ?15*@ and E/pediente No' 11 +>=O =ecord *656' It should be noted howe,er that
the =e$ister of the Deeds does not ha,e an record of an OCT issued pursuant to +>=O
=ecord *656'
7)8
As shown b E/pediente No' 5, +>=O record *6;1 which beca!e the basis for the issuance of the
alle$ed OCT No' =OA1*55 ?1<)@ and E/pediente No' 6 +>=O =ecord *6;) which beca!e the
basis for the issuance of alle$ed OCT No' =O 1*50 ?1<5@'
708
As shown b E/pediente No' 5 which beca!e the basis for the issuance of alle$ed OCT No' =O 1*5)
?51)@'
758
OCT 51) co,ered >ot Nos' 1, ;, ), 0, 5, 5, <, 6, *, 11, 11, and 1; of %lan IIA*;** while OCT 15*,1<5 and
1<) co,ered >ot Nos' ;, 1 and ) of %lan IIA*;15' Another alle$ed OCT with an unspecified
nu!ber co,ered >ot No' 0 of %lan IIA*;15'
758
E/h' ;1'
7<8
E/h' 3'
768
TCT )*11 ?E/h 1AA@ ori$inated fro! OCT No' =OA1*5) ?51)@ ?E/h 1@: TCT )*1; ?E/h ;AA@ ori$inated
fro! OCT No' =O 1*50 ?1<5@ 7E/h ;8 while TCT )*1) ?E/h )AA@ ori$inated fro! OCT No' =O
1*55 ?15*@ 7E/h )8 and TCT No' )*10 ?E/h 0AA@ ori$inated fro! OCT No' =OA1*55 ?1<)@ 7E/h 08'
7*8
Aside fro! ta/ receipts !ar&ed as E/h *A9 to *A# co,erin$ the ears 1*<<, 1*6) and 1*60, ta/
declaration Nos' 16)6, 15;6, 15;<, 15;5, 15)5, 1601, 16)5, 160;, 16)), 1601, 16);, 16)0 and
16)* !ar&ed as E/h 5, 5AA to 5A>, also presented in e,idence !ar&ed as E/h 1* was a
Certificate of Appreciation awarded b the %ro,ince of Alba in 1*55 to petitioner I$nacio %alo!o
for pro!pt and up to date pa!ent of ta/ obli$ations'
7118
Should be OCT 51)'
7118
Should be >ot ;'
71;8
Rollo, pp' 5)A50'
71)8
=ecords, pp' 5;' The =epublic, in fact, ne,er clai!ed the entire ),)60 s2uare !eters as shown b the
=elocation %lan of IIA55<* ?!ar&ed as E/h #A)AT @ when sur,eed for Ci,il Case TA10) and 1<5'
7108
E/hibits 10, 15, 15AA, 15, 15AA, 1<, 16, 16AA'
7158
Auon$ #ian ! Court of Ta/ Appeals, 5* SC=A 111 ?1*<0@: CruC ! CA, 1*0 SC=A 105: Sharp
International 4ar&etin$ , CA, ;11 SC=A ;**: =epublic ! IAC, ;1* SC=A *1: +SIS !'CA , ;16
SC=A ;))'
7158
TSN, ;< Septe!ber 1*<<, pp' 16A1*'
71<8
Vano ! +o,ern!ent of %'I, 01 % 151 71*;18: >i Sen$ +iap Cia ! Director, 55 %hil 5*) 71*)18:
.ernandeC #nos' ! Director, 5< %hil *;* 71*)18: 4ilitar =eser,ations !4arcos, 5; SC=A ;)6
71*<)8: =epublic ! CA, 150 SC=A 0<5: Vallarta ! IAC, 15; SC=A 5<*: Director of .orest
Ad!inistration ! .ernandeC, 1*; SC=A 1;1'
7168
=ees ! Sierra, *) SC=A 0<;: 4asa$ana ! Ar$a!osa, 11* SC=A 5): .errer >opeC ! CA, 151 SC=A
)*): Cara$ ! IAC, 1<< SC=A )1): Director of >ands ! IAC, 1*5 SC=A )6'
71*8
E/hibit #A0'
7;18
E/hibit #A5'
7;18
%etitioners alle$ed that 0 ba!boo $ro,es in the lots co,ered b TCT )*1) andDor )*10 were
"eradicated" b e!ploees of the Office of %ar&s and -ildlife, now 3ureau of .orest and
De,elop!ent'
7;;8
TSN, ;6 October 1*65, pp' ;5A;<'