This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-09-03 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Alienable and disposable lands of the State fall into two categories, to wit: (a) patrimonial lands of the State, or those classified as lands of private ownership under Article 425 of the Civil Code,[23] without limitation; and (b) lands of the public domain, or the public lands as provided by the Constitution, but with the limitation that the lands must only be agricultural. Consequently, lands classified as forest or timber, mineral, or national parks are not susceptible of alienation or disposition unless they are reclassified as agricultural.[24] A positive act of the Government is necessary to enable such reclassification,[25] and the exclusive prerogative to classify public lands under existing laws is vested in the Executive Department, not in the courts.[26] If, however, public land will be classified as neither agricultural, forest or timber, mineral or national park, or when public land is no longer intended for public service or for the development of the national wealth, thereby effectively removing the land from the ambit of public dominion, a declaration of such conversion must be made in the form of a law duly enacted by Congress or by a Presidential proclamation in cases where the President is duly authorized by law to that effect.[27] Thus, until the Executive Department exercises its prerogative to classify or reclassify lands, or until Congress or the President declares that the State no longer intends the land to be used for public service or for the development of national wealth, the Regalian Doctrine is applicable. | |||||
|
2011-08-31 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| In Republic v. Court of Appeals,[21] this Court noted that to prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, an applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order; and administrative action; investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a legislative act or a statute.[22] A certification issued by a Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) stating that the lots involved were found to be within the alienable and disposable area was deemed sufficient to show the real character of the land.[23] | |||||
|
2011-08-24 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, an applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order; an administrative action; investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a legislative act or a statute.[16] The applicant may also secure a certification from the Government that the lands applied for are alienable and disposable.[17] | |||||
|
2007-03-02 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| To our minds, the said certification is sufficient to establish the true nature or character of the subject property. The certification enjoys a presumption of regularity in the absence of contradictory evidence.[22] As it is, the said certification remains uncontested and even the Republic itself did not present any evidence to refute the contents of the said certification. Therefore, the alienable and disposable character of the questioned parcel of land has been clearly established by the evidence of the petitioners, by 3 January 1968, at the latest. | |||||
|
2005-01-17 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| This reading aligns conformably with our holding in Republic v. Court of Appeals.[14] Therein, the Court noted that "to prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, an applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order; an administrative action; investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a legislative act or a statute."[15] In that case, the subject land had been certified by the DENR as alienable and disposable in 1980, thus the Court concluded that the alienable status of the land, compounded by the established fact that therein respondents had occupied the land even before 1927, sufficed to allow the application for registration of the said property. In the case at bar, even the petitioner admits that the subject property was released and certified as within alienable and disposable zone in 1980 by the DENR.[16] | |||||