You are on page 1of 9

MEMORANDUM Prefatory Statement The legal dispute began when private party, with an alleged Transfer Certificate of Title,

appears claiming a parcel of land after being absent for 35 years. The farmers tilling the land claim that they have rights over the land because of possession and through the prescription of period. However, the DENR have classified the parcel of land as timberland, thereby making it a state-owned land. This case seeks to clarify the real owners of the parcel of land, henceforth elucidating the rights that the farmers can avail as a result. In depth, the proponents seek to resolve the issue of dominance between a proclamation that a parcel of land is timber and a transfer of certificate title declaring the same parcel of land as privately owned, and what remedies are obtainable to the tenant-farmers. Statement of Facts

Statement of the Case

Issues 1. Whether the private party has merit on his claim for the subject land. 2. Whether a Presidential Proclamation that a parcel of land is timberland will prevail over a Transfer Certificate of Title declaring the same parcel of land as privately owned. 3. Whether the 30-year prescription apply in favour of the state for controlling and occupying a parcel of land in the concept of an owner. Discussion The tenant-farmers having tilled and occupied the subject land for more than 35 years express an open, continuous, public and actual possession of said property, thus qualifying such action to assert their claim of the said land. Article 531 of the New Civil Code states that, Possession is acquired by the material occupation of a thing or the exercise of a right, or by the fact that it is subject to the action of our will, or by the proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring such right. Firstly, possession of the land gives weight to the contention of the farmers. Moreover, Article 1106 of the New Civil Code provides, by prescription, one acquires ownership and other real rights through the lapse of time in the manner and under conditions laid down by law. In the same way, rights and actions are lost by prescription. The first statement of the provision tells us a method where one acquires

ownership guided by the procedures and conditions of the law. At the same time, the second statement of the said provision follows thru that the lapse of a period required in the law shall have an effect of losing ones cause of action. This creates favor to the tenant-farmers such that the private person claiming the real property can actually lose the right to reacquire it by acting indifferently throughout 35 years. The provision of extinctive prescription, thus, bars the private party for his cause of action. [1] Additionally, Article 1134 of the same Code aptly states that ownership and other real rights over immovable property are acquired by ordinary prescription through possession of ten years. Put to a maximum, Article 1137 states that the same also prescribe through uninterrupted adverse possession thereof for thirty years, without need of title or of good faith. Whether there be good faith or otherwise, clearly the period passed way beyond the maximum term of 30 years, even if doubt is considered. Facts provide that thirty five (35) years had already lapsed. Jurisprudence and law support the argument, hence, the private party claiming the land cannot qualify to claim such property. Through the course of actions and counter-actions, it was discovered that the subject land is a timberland or forest land, ultimately belonging to the government of the Philippine Islands. Section 4 (e) of the Republic Act No. 7900 defines forest lands as those of the public domain which have not been declared as alienable or disposable, public forests, permanent forests or forest reserves,

forest reservations, timberlands, grazing lands, game refuge, and bird sanctuaries. Emphasis on the forest land having not yet declared as alienable and disposable, the subject land could not have been privately owned. Forest lands are outside the commerce of man and unsusceptible of private appropriation in any form. [2] In LBP v. Director of Lands, [3] it is well settled that a certificate of title is void when it covers property of public domain classified as forest, timber or mineral lands, even if it was acquired innocently. In this regard, however, private apportionment of forest or timber lands is not allowed and, thus, the tenant-farmers can only merely prohibit the private partys claim on the land and likewise cannot assert ownership and possession of the subject land. The Court of Appeals Disposition in LBP v. Director of Lands is hereby quoted: Forest lands or forest reserves are incapable of private appropriation and possession thereof, however long, cannot convert them into private properties. This is premised on the Regalian Doctrine enshrined not only in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions but also in the 1987 Constitution. x x x It has also been held that whatever possession of the land prior to the date of release of forested land as alienable and disposable cannot be credited to the 30-year requirement under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act. The Regalian Doctrine which was enshrined in our Constitution provides that all land of public domain, waters, minerals, coal,

petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. This is excerpt from the 1987 Constitution under National Economy and Patrimony. Section 2 of the Public Land Act supports this stating that only those lands that were declared open for disposition or concession which have been officially delimited and classified and surveyed, and which have not been reserved for public or quasi-public uses, nor appropriated by the Government, nor in any manner become private property, nor those on which a private right authorized and recognized by this Act or any other valid law may be claimed. Also, those lands which, having been reserved or appropriated, have ceased to be so, the President may, for reasons of public interest, declare lands of the public domain open to disposition before the same have had their boundaries established or been surveyed, or may, for the same reason, suspend their concession or disposition until they are again declared open to concession or disposition by proclamation duly published or by Act of the National Assembly. Given the premise, the private party could not have owned the subject land because such real property, under the registry of DENR, is a timberland. In Zarate v. Director of Lands, [4] the confirmation of a title applies only if and when there is an official proclamation that a timberland has become part of the alienable and disposable land of the

public domain. Therefore, the need to prove such promulgation by the claimant of the land arises. He then must have secured a certification from the government that such parcel of land was in fact alienable and disposable, [5] and consequently provide to the court such evidence. Failure to accomplish such burden otherwise will scrape the merit of the private partys claim. Even if the private party could have acquired the title of the said parcel of land, still, under the Regalian Doctrine, lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. [6] In instances where a parcel of land considered to be inalienable land of the public domain is found under private ownership, the Government is allowed by law to file an action for reversion, which is an action where the ultimate relief sought is to revert the land to the government under the Regalian doctrine. On the light of prescription against the State, Article 1113 of the New Civil Code provides: All things which are within the commerce of men, are susceptible of prescription, unless otherwise provided. Property of the State or any of its subdivisions not patrimonial in character shall not be the object of prescription. Moreover, Article 1108 of the same code specifically states that prescription, both acquisitive and extinctive, does not run against the State and its subdivisions. Basic as a hornbook principle is that prescription does not run against the government. [7] In so far as the timeliness of the action of

the Government is concerned, it is basic that prescription does not run against the State. x x x The case law has also been: When the government is the real party in interest, and is proceeding mainly to assert its own rights and recover its own property, there can be no defense on the ground of laches or limitation.' x x x 'Public land fraudulently included in patents or certificates of title may be recovered or reverted to the State in accordance with Section 101 of the Public Land Act. Prescription does not lie against the State in such cases for the Statute of Limitations does not run against the State. The right of reversion or reconveyance to the State is not barred by prescription.[8] Concluding Statement Provided that the subject land could not be appropriated to any person, the proponents invoke the intent of Republic Act No. 1199 otherwise known as the Agricultural Tenancy Act of the Philippines. The purpose of said statute is to establish agricultural tenancy relations between landholders and tenants upon the principle of school justice; to afford adequate protection to the rights of both tenants and landholders; to insure an equitable division of the produce and income derived from the land; to provide tenant- farmers with incentives to greater and more efficient agricultural production; to bolster their economic position and to encourage their participation in the development of peaceful, vigorous and democratic rural communities. [9]

The Public Land Act (Commonwealth Act No. 141) also provides in Section 11 that there are cases where public lands are suitable for being disposable for the purpose of agriculture. The tenant-farmers, in this case, have been tilling the subject land as an occupation for already a long period of time. This livelihood is the sustenance of their respective families. These tenant-farmers pray: (1) (2) (3) that there will be social justice given to them as what the that the State will provide them at the very least concession that they be given consideration and favour against the

current Constitution emanates for, to the said land for agriculture, and private party who only alleges ownership and rights to the subject land. Given the contents of this memorandum, the tenant-farmers are empowered with their right to fight for the subject land with the ammunition of possession and prescription against the private claimant. However, no one is above the law; the farmers cannot go against the supremacy of the Regalian Doctrine as the land in contention is a timberland. The State is hereby enjoined to give consideration to these farmers for the sake of social justice and equity. Endnotes: [1] Morales v. Court of First Instance of Mis. Occ., G.R. No. L-52278, 29 May 1980. [2] Gordula v. Court of Appeals, 348 Phil 670.

[3] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Director of Lands, G.R. No. 150824, 4 Feb 2008. [4] Zarate v. Director of Lands, G.R. No. 131501, 14 July 2004 citing Bracewell v. Court of Appeals. [5] Director of Lands v. Buyco, 216 SCRA 78 (1992). [6] SAAD AGRO-INDUSTRIES, Inc. v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 152570, 27 September 2006. [7] East Asia Traders Inc. v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 152947, 7 July 2004. [8] Reyes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94524, 10 September 1998. [9] Section 2 of R.A. 1199 otherwise known as the Agricultural Tenancy Act of the Philippines.

You might also like