This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2014-06-02 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The Regalian doctrine, embodied in Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, provides that all lands of the public domain belong to the State, which is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land. All lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Unless public land is shown to have been reclassified or alienated to a private person by the State, it remains part of the inalienable public domain[39] for land classification or reclassification cannot be assumed. It must be proved.[40] And the applicant bears the burden to overturn, by incontrovertible evidence, the presumption that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable and disposable.[41] | |||||
|
2011-08-31 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Under Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution, which embodies the Regalian doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the State - the source of any asserted right to ownership of land.[13] All lands not appearing to be clearly of private dominion presumptively belong to the State.[14] Accordingly, public lands not shown to have been reclassified or released as alienable and disposable agricultural land or alienated to a private person by the State remain part of the inalienable public domain.[15] Incontrovertible evidence must be presented to establish that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable.[16] | |||||
|
2011-01-17 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Matters of land classification or reclassification cannot be assumed; they call for proof.[14] To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, an applicant must conclusively establish the existence of a positive act of the government, such as any of the following: a presidential proclamation or an executive order; other administrative actions; investigation reports of the Bureau of Lands investigator; or a legislative act or statute.[15] The applicant may also secure a certification from the government that the lands applied for are alienable and disposable.[16] | |||||
|
2008-10-08 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, no such proclamation, executive order, administrative action, report, statute, or certification was presented to the Court. The records are bereft of evidence showing that, prior to 2006, the portions of Boracay occupied by private claimants were subject of a government proclamation that the land is alienable and disposable. Absent such well-nigh incontrovertible evidence, the Court cannot accept the submission that lands occupied by private claimants were already open to disposition before 2006. Matters of land classification or reclassification cannot be assumed. They call for proof.[87] | |||||
|
2008-06-26 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The well-entrenched rule is that all lands not appearing to be clearly of private dominion presumably belong to the State.[14] The onus to overturn, by incontrovertible evidence, the presumption that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable and disposable rests with the applicant.[15] | |||||
|
2006-09-26 |
|||||
| Section 6 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, provides that the classification and reclassification of public lands into alienable or disposable, mineral or forest land is the prerogative of the Executive Department. Under the Regalian doctrine, which is embodied in our Constitution, all lands of the public domain belong to the State, which is the source of any asserted right to any ownership of land.[24] All lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.[25] Accordingly, public lands not shown to have been reclassified or released as alienable agricultural land or alienated to a private person by the State remain part of the inalienable public domain.[26] | |||||