TL;DR

The Supreme Court affirmed that unclassified public lands in the Philippines are considered forest lands under Presidential Decree No. 705 and therefore belong to the State, not subject to private ownership. This means that farmers or occupants of such lands, even if they have been tilling the land for a long time, cannot claim ownership without a positive act from the government classifying the land as alienable and disposable. The ruling underscores the Regalian Doctrine, which vests all lands of the public domain in the State, emphasizing that only agricultural lands can be privately owned. For those occupying unclassified public lands, this decision highlights the need to petition the DENR for land reclassification rather than seeking judicial confirmation of ownership.

Guardians of the Green: When Unclassified Land Remains Forest in the Eyes of the Law

In a crucial environmental law case, the Federation of Coron, Busuanga, Palawan Farmer’s Association, Inc. (FCBPFAI) and other petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Section 3(a) of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 705, also known as the Forestry Reform Code of the Philippines. This provision defines “public forest” as any public land not yet officially classified for forest or non-forest purposes. The petitioners, representing farmers in Palawan whose lands were denied coverage under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) because they were deemed unclassified forest land, argued that this definition violated constitutional principles and deprived them of their right to own land they had long occupied and cultivated.

The heart of the legal challenge was the assertion that Section 3(a) of P.D. No. 705 retroactively and unconstitutionally converted unclassified lands into forest lands, thus making them inalienable and hindering land ownership for millions of Filipinos relying on these lands for livelihood. Petitioners contended that unclassified lands should be presumed agricultural and disposable, not automatically classified as forest. They argued that only lands explicitly covered in trees and timber should be designated as forests, while the rest should be open for agricultural use and private ownership.

However, the Supreme Court, in its resolution, firmly rejected this view and upheld the constitutionality of Section 3(a). The Court anchored its decision on the long-standing Regalian Doctrine, a principle embedded in Philippine jurisprudence and various constitutions, asserting that all lands of the public domain belong to the State. This doctrine dictates that the State is the original source of all land titles, and any claim to private land ownership must be traced back to a grant from the State. The Court emphasized that under this doctrine, public lands remain inalienable unless positively classified as alienable and disposable by the government.

Justice Gesmundo, writing for the Court, highlighted that the presumption of constitutionality favors every statute, and petitioners failed to present a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution by Section 3(a) of P.D. No. 705. The Court underscored that the Philippine Bill of 1902 and subsequent Public Land Acts did not automatically classify unclassified public lands as agricultural. Instead, the power to classify lands of the public domain is vested in the executive branch, not the judiciary. Historically, while early jurisprudence under the Philippine Bill of 1902 allowed courts to presume lands as agricultural in the absence of classification, this judicial discretion was removed with the enactment of Act No. 2874 in 1919, which vested land classification authority in the executive branch.

Furthermore, the Court referenced key precedents like Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources v. Yap and Heirs of the late Spouses Vda. de Palanca v. Republic, which consistently affirmed that unclassified lands are considered public forest under P.D. No. 705 and remain inalienable. The Court clarified that the definition of “forest land” in law is a legal classification, not merely a descriptive term of land cover. Land classified as forest land remains so unless officially reclassified, even if it has been stripped of trees or is currently used for agriculture.

The Court sympathized with the plight of the petitioners and other farmers who have long cultivated unclassified public lands. However, it stressed that relief must come from the executive branch through a process of land reclassification. The judiciary’s role is to interpret and apply the law, not to reclassify public lands. The Court pointed out that while the current centralized system of land classification may be cumbersome, especially for farmers in remote areas, any reform must be addressed through legislative or executive action, respecting the principle of separation of powers.

In concurring opinions, Justices Leonen and Caguioa further elaborated on the historical context and implications of the Regalian Doctrine. Justice Leonen acknowledged the doctrine as a legal fiction with colonial roots, while also emphasizing the exception of native title originating from time immemorial. Justice Caguioa underscored the Regalian Doctrine’s foundational role in the State’s property regime, clarifying the presumption of state ownership and the limited scope of the Cariño v. Insular Government exception, which recognizes pre-Spanish conquest land rights.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s resolution reinforced the State’s authority over unclassified public lands and upheld the constitutionality of Section 3(a) of P.D. No. 705. It clarified that those seeking private ownership of such lands must pursue administrative reclassification through the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), as the courts cannot override the executive’s prerogative in land classification. The decision serves as a stark reminder of the enduring strength of the Regalian Doctrine in Philippine land law and the procedural hurdles faced by occupants of unclassified public lands seeking formal land titles.

FAQs

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: FCBPFAI vs. DENR & DAR, G.R No. 247866, September 15, 2020