SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 189803, March 14, 2018
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE LAND MANAGEMENT BUREAU (LMB), Petitioner, v. FILEMON SAROMO, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
CAGUIOA, J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari1 (Petition) under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision2 dated June 30, 2009 (Decision) of the Court of Appeals3 (CA) in CA-G.R. CV. No. 87801, denying the appeal of the petitioner Republic of the Philippines (Republic) and affirming the Decision4 dated October 24, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court of Balayan, Batangas, Branch 9 (RTC) in Civil Case No. 3929. The RTC Decision dismissed the reversion and cancellation of title complaint filed by the Republic against respondent Filemon Saromo (Saromo). The Petition also assails the Resolution5 dated October 12, 2009 of the CA denying the motion for reconsideration filed by the Republic.
On September 25, 1980, Geodetic Engineer Francisco C. Guevarra surveyed the land subject of this case for x x x Filemon Saromo. Engineer Guevarra then prepared Survey Plan No. PSU-4-A-004479 (Exhibit "A"). At the bottom left hand portion of the plan is a NOTE that states: "This survey is formerly a portion of China Sea. This survey is inside unclassified public forest land and is apparently inside the area covered by Proclamation No. 1801 dated November 10, 1978. This survey is within 100.00 meters strip along the shore line. This survey was endorsed by the District Land Officer D.L.O. No. (IV-A-1), Batangas City dated December 11, 1980." The survey plan of the subject lot includes the salvage zone.Ruling of the RTC
On September 30, 1980, Survey Plan No. PSU-4-A-004479 was submitted to Region IV-A for approval.
On December 11, 1980, the survey plan was endorsed by the District Land Officer, Batangas City and on the following day, December 12, 1980, the plan was approved by Flor U. Pelayo, Officer-in-Charge.
On December 24, 1980, Saromo, then fifty 50 years old, executed an Application for Free Patent (Exh. "N"), covering the subject property, which he filed with the Bureau of Lands, District Land Office No. IV-A-1 in Batangas City. The application stated among others that the land is an agricultural public land covered by Survey No. PSU-4-A-004479, containing an area of forty five thousand eight hundred eight (45,808) square meters and that Saromo first occupied and cultivated the land by himself in 1944 (Exh. "N-2" and. "N-3").
x x x x
On the same date, Saromo executed an affidavit (Exh. "4"), stating that he is the holder of Free Patent Application No. (IV-A-1) 15603 and that he holds himself responsible for any liability, whether civil and/or criminal that may arise if the land has already been adjudicated as private property and/or the corresponding certificate of title had in fact been issued and for any statement he had made therein that may be found untrue or false.
On January 24, 1981, Saromo executed an affidavit (Exh. ["]3["]) in support of a Notice of Application for Free Patent stating that said Notice of Application for Free Patent (which was not signed by the Director of Lands) was posted on the bulletin board.of the barrio where the land is situated and at the door of the municipal building on December 24, 1980 until the 24th day of January 1981.
On March 4, 1981, Alberto A. Aguilar executed an investigation report (Exh. "P") stating that on January 14, 1981, he went to and examined the land applied for by Saromo; that the land applied for is inside agricultural area under proposed Project No. 31 LC Map 225. While the certified true copy of said investigation report submitted by the Republic mentions "LC Map 225", the xerox copy of the same investigation report offered in evidence by Saromo as "Exhibit 26", contains an insertion of the number ["]#235" above the words LC Map 225.
On May 18, 1981, Jaime Juanillo, District Land Officer, issued an Order (Exh. "O") approving the application for free patent of Saromo and ordering the issuance of Patent No. 17522 in his favor. The Order stated that the land applied for has been classified as alienable and disposable; the investigation conducted by Land Investigation/Inspector Alberto A. Aguilar revealed that the land applied for has been occupied and cultivated by the applicant himself and/or his predecessors[-]in[-]interest since July 4, 1926 or prior thereto.
On May 26, 1981, Original Certificate of Title No. P-331 (Exh. "C") was issued in the name of Filemon Saromo by Deputy Register of Deeds for the Province of Batangas, Gregorio C. Sembrano.
On October 16, 1981, a certain Luis Mendoza filed with the Bureau of Lands a protest against the Free Patent awarded to Saromo. The investigation was not terminated because of the resignation of the investigator from the Bureau and his departure for the United States. (Exh. "B"; p. 21, TSN, Aprill5, 2002, Atty. Rogelio Mandar)
On September 6, 1999, the Director of Lands issued Special Order No. 99-99 creating an investigation team headed by Atty. Rogelio C. Mandar to verify and determine the legality of the issuance of Free Patent No. 17522, now OCT No. P-331, in the name of Saromo covering the subject parcel of land identified as Lot No. 3, Plan PSU-4-A-004479, containing an area of forty five thousand eight hundred eight (45,808) square meters (Exhs. "B"; pp. 6-7, TSN, April 15, 2002, Atty. Mandar). The investigation team found from the documents gathered that:a) the subject lot covered by Free Patent No. 17522 in the name of Saromo, identified and described under Plan PSU-4-A-004479, was not alienable and disposable at the time of the issuance thereof, as it was found upon investigation to be "inside unclassified public forest and covered by Proclamation No. 1801 declaring the whole of Batangas Coastline as tourist zone (Exh. "B", p. 2)x x x (O]n September 19, 2001, the Republic filed this case for Reversion/Cancellation of Title before the [RTC].
b) the issuance of Free Patent No. 17522 in the name of Saromo was highly improper and irregular, and Free Patent No. 17522 and the corresponding OCT N[o]. P-331 issued to Saromo is null and void ab initio and the land covered must be reverted to the State. x x x
[The Republic], in its Complaint, alleged that the subject lot covered by OCT No. P-331 is inside the unclassified forest [land] and also inside the area covered by Proclamation No. 1801 dated November 10, 1978 declaring the land as Tourist Zones and Marine Preserve under the administration and control of the Philippine Tourism Industry. It further alleged that upon ocular inspection, it was ascertained that the land is situated along the coastline of Brgy. Balibago and that since it is part of the shore, it concluded that the subject lot is part of the public dominion and therefore, cannot be titled in the name of private person.
On the other hand, (Saromo), in his Answer, denied the allegations of [the Republic] and countered that the subject land is disposable and alienable the same being an agricultural land suited for cultivation and plantation of fruit bearing trees at the time the free patent was issued to him. He claimed that he is the owner of the subject lot in fee simple by virtue of OCT No. [P-]331 and Free Patent No. 17522, which was lawfully issued to him by the Lands Management Bureau (formerly, Bureau of Lands).6
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant complaint is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.The RTC relied heavily on the testimony of Engr. Francisco Guevara9 (Engr. Guevara), who testified that the note appearing on the survey plan indicated "past and present annotations" placed by the office of the Bureau of Lands and that the "land is no longer a forest land and it belongs to what was alienated and disposed by the [then] Bureau of Lands and therefore, it is suited for plantation, cultivation[.]"10
No pronouncement as to the costs.
SO ORDERED.8
IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The decision dated 24 October 2005 of the Regional Trial Court of Balayan, Batangas, Branch 9, in Civil Case No. 3929 is hereby AFFIRMED.The CA also relied on the testimony of Engr. Guevara, who was the person who prepared the survey plan referred to above, to the effect that the subject land is an agricultural land and, therefore, alienable and disposable.21 The CA noted the explanation of Engr. Guevara on the meaning of "unclassified public forest land" annotated on the survey plan to the effect that since the subject land is "capable of being cultivated and planted with trees, vegetables and other plantation done by any occupants," it follows that the same is already alienable and disposable.22 Thus, the CA ruled that the Republic failed to prove its cause of action by preponderance of evidence.23
No costs.
SO ORDERED.20
1. Whether the CA erred on a question of law in upholding that the subject land is alienable and disposable at the time of issuance of free patent title to Saromo.
2. Whether the CA erred in not applying Section 91 of the Public Land Act on fraud and misrepresentation and in disregarding the attendant fraud and misrepresentation of Saromo in his free patent application.
3. Whether the CA erred in applying the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties of the officer who issued Saromo's free patent.
4. Whether the principle of Regalian doctrine applies in the present case.28
SEC. 59. Tourism Enterprise Zones. - Any geographic area with the following characteristics may be designated as a Tourism Enterprise Zone:Under RA 9593, it is the newly created TIEZA (Tourism Infrastructure and Enterprise Zone Authority) that shall designate TEZs, upon recommendation of any local government unit (LGU) or private entity, or through joint ventures between the public and the private sectors.37
(a) The area is capable of being defined into one contiguous territory;
(b) It has historical and cultural significance, environmental beauty, or existing or potential integrated leisure facilities within its bounds or within reasonable distances from it;
(c) It has, or it may have, strategic access through transportation infrastructure, and reasonable connection with utilities infrastructure systems;
(d) It is sufficient in size, such that it may be further utilized for bringing in new investments in tourism establishments and services; and
(e) It is in a strategic location such as to catalyze the socioeconomic development of their neighboring communities.
Aside from the foregoing explanation, Engr. Guevara commented on the significance of the said NOTE during his direct examination, to wit:
[Atty. Benjamin C. Asido: (to the witness)]
Q May we ask you again, what you mean by the note, "This survey is inside unclassified public forest land," what is the meaning of that? A It meant that the place was already alienable and disposable as classified by the Bureau of Forestry and if there are any improvements such as grasses, they really reflect as unclassified forest. But then, this is capable o[f] being cultivated and planted with trees, vegetables and other plantation done by any occupants, sir. Q In other words, what you are saying is, is that the meaning of inside unclassified public forest is that it is already alienable and disposable, is that what you mean? A Yes, sir.44
The CA also stated: "And his testimony on the meaning of 'unclassified public forest land' was not rebutted by the [Republic]."46
[Atty. Paciano B. Balita (to witness)] Q In your plan, there is a note, what is the significance of that note, if any? A In the note it is placed here that all corners not otherwise described PLS are cyl. concrete monuments 15x60 cm, and the others were planted PS cyl. concrete monuments 15x60 and these comers are formerly a portion of China sea and this survey is inside unclassified public forest land and is apparently inside the area covered by Proclamation No. 1801 dated November 10, 1978 and all the survey is within 100 meters strip along the shoreline and this survey was indorsed by the district land officer D.L.O. Bo. (IV-A1), Batangas City dated December 11, 1980. These are the notes placed by the office of the Bureau of Lands, indicating that all these are past and present annotations in the place, sir.45
As reflected in his investigation report, the improvements in the land consisted of "coconuts" and that "the land applied for is inside Agricultural area under proposed project No. 31 L.C. map 225."50
[Atty. Paciano B. Balita (to the witness)] Q You made a report. Now, during your inspection, would you tell the Court what actually was the physical feature of the land? A The land being applied for free-patent is agricultural in nature, sir.49
Both the RTC and the CA erred in unduly relying on the testimony of Engr. Guevara because his observation as to the physical features of the subject land is not conclusive to remove the subject land from its "unclassified forest land" classification and overturn the NOTE that the area he surveyed was "inside unclassified public forest land." Similarly, the testimonies of Engr. Guevara, Aguilar and Engr. Cabrera on their observations as to the physical features of the subject land during their ocular inspection are not clear and convincing proof that the subject land is alienable and disposable.
[Atty. Paciano B. Balita (to the witness)] Q Would you be able to tell the Honorable Court, actually the physical feature or condition of this property subject of this suit? A That is agricultural in nature because there was an improvement thereon; planted with coconut trees, beach houses, sir. Q It is not a forest land or timber land? A No, sir.51
Forests, in the context of both the Public Land Act and the Constitution53 classifying lands of the public domain into "agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands and national parks," do not necessarily refer to large tracts of wooded land or expanses covered by dense growths of trees and underbrushes.54 The discussion in Heirs of Amunategui v. Director of Forestry55 is particularly instructive:There is a big difference between "forest" as defined in a dictionary and "forest or timber land" as a classification of lands of the public domain as appearing in our statutes. One is descriptive of what appears on the land while the other is a legal status, a classification for legal purposes.57 At any rate, the Court is tasked to determine the legal status ofBoracay Island, and not look into its physical layout. Hence, even if its forest cover has been replaced by beach resorts, restaurants and other commercial establishments, it has not been automatically converted from public forest to alienable agricultural land.58A forested area classified as forest land of the public domain does not lose such classification simply because loggers or settlers have stripped it of its forest cover. Parcels of land classified as forest land may actually be covered with grass or planted to crops by kaingin cultivators or other farmers. "Forest lands" do not have to be on mountains or in out of the way places. Swampy areas covered by mangrove trees, nipa palms, and other trees growing in brackish or sea water may also be classified as forest land. The classification is descriptive of its legal nature or status and does not have to be descriptive of what the land actually looks like. Unless and until the land classified as "forest" is released in an official proclamation to that effect so that it may form part of the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain, the rules on confirmation of imperfect title do not apply.56 (Emphasis supplied)
While it is true that the land classification map does not categorically state that the islands are public forests, the fact that they were unclassified lands leads to the same result. In the absence of the classification as mineral or timber land, the land remains unclassified land until released and rendered open to disposition.60 When the property is still unclassified, whatever possession applicants may have had, and however long, still cannot ripen into private ownership.61 This is because, pursuant to Constitutional precepts, all lands of the public domain belong to the State, and the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership in such lands and is charged with the conservation of such patrimony.62 Thus, the Court has emphasized the need to show in registration proceedings that the government, through a positive act, has declassified inalienable public land into disposable land for agricultural or other purposes.63Given the foregoing, the misapprehension of the "facts" as adduced by Saromo through the foregoing testimonial evidence warrants the review by the Court of the findings of fact of both the CA and the RTC. Without the official declaration that the subject land is alienable and disposable or proof of its declassification into disposable agricultural land, the "unclassified public forest land's" legal classification of the subject land remains.
On cross-examination, Engr. Calubayan explained that based on the projection of the survey plan for Saromo, it is within the Municipality of Calatagan despite the indication in OCT No. P-331 issued to Saromo that it is in Balibago, Lian, Batangas, to wit:
[Atty. Benjamin C. Asido (to witness)] Q Sometime in July 2002, did you receive a letter request [from] one Atty. Benjamin Asido in relation to this complaint in this particular case? A Yes, sir. x x x x Q Do you have [the] letter request of Atty. Asido? x x x x A Yes, it is on file, sir. ASIDO: Q May I have that record? INTERPRETER: Witness showing a letter request addressed to CENRO Officer dated July 10, 2002. ASIDO: May I make [of] record, your Honor, that the letter request be marked as Exhibit "1". A letter request dated July 10, 2002 requesting the CENRO Officer to certify whether or not the land subject of this case is alienable or disposable. Q What action, if any, did you take on the letter request? A It is a standard operating procedure that whenever communication of this nature has been received by our office, I used to forward this to our Chief of Forestry, the Chief of Forest Management Service, sir. Q Q What action, if any, did your Chief of Management Service take? A Well, as requested in the request, the office through the Chief of Forest Management Service prepared a certification, sir. Q May I have that Certification? A (Witness showing a Certification dated October 9, 2002) ASIDO: May I request, your Honor, that this Certification prepared by Pedro Caringal, Jr. be marked as Exhibit "J". x x x x ASIDO: Q In this Certification marked as Exhibit "J", you stated under paragraph 1 and I quote: "Plan PSU-4A-004479 surveyed in the name of Filemon Saromo covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-331 with an area of 4.5 hectares more or less in the Municipality of Calatagan, Batangas," do you have that plan with you now? Plan PSU-4A-004479? A I have the copy of that plan, sir. This is the copy of the plan on record, sir. (Witness showing a plan of the land surveyed for Filemon Saromo) x x x x Q Under paragraph 1 of this Certification, Exhibit "J", you stated that the area covered by OCT No. P-331 is within the foreshore area of the Municipality of Calatagan? A Yes, sir, because the approved plan of PSU-4A-004479 was projected and verified against [sheet] 5 of 9 sheets land classification map number, in short, under LC Map 3276 verified on June 29, 1987, sir. Q Do you have that LC map with you? A Yes, sir. Q May I have that LC Map? A This is the LC Map that Iam referring to (Witness showing LC Map 3276) Q Will you please indicate in your report the land subject of this case in the LC Map 3276? A This is the area where the subject PSU Plan falls when verified and plotted in the LC Map. It falls on Project No. 38-A, Block C, which states that it is forest land (permanent forest) with an area of 38.8 hectares the overall area of the project where that PSU falls, sir. ASIDO: May we request that the LC Map be marked as Exhibit "L" for the plaintiff and area indicated by the witness subject of this case be marked as Exhibit "L-1", your Honor. x x x x ASIDO: We [request] that the investigation report relative to the application for Free Patent [of Saromo] be marked as Exhibit "P", your Honor. x x x x Q Now in this Investigation Report under paragraph 7 it states that the land is not inside agricultural area LC Map No. 225, do you have this LC Map 225? A I have with me the record of LC Map 225 (Witness showing LC Map 225) Q Is this LC Map for the Province ofBatangas? A It says here, it is Sibulan, sir. Q Where is Sibulan? A May I see the map, sir. According to this LC [Map] 225, it appears that it covers the Municipality of Sibulan, Negros Oriental. ASIDO: May we request, your Honor, that the LC Map No. 225 be marked as an evidence as Exhibit "Q" and the Municipality of Sibulan, Negros Oriental be marked as Exhibit "Q-1",your Honor. May we request that paragraph 7 of the investigation report be marked as Exhibit "P-1", your Honor. Q Also this LC Map, it made mention [of] Project No. 31. Do you have that map? A This LC 718, there is written project No. 31 but this subdivision, the Municipality ofTaal, sir. Q Where is that? A This is also in Batangas, sir. Q How far is Barrio Balibago from Taal? A It is so far away, Taal and Balibago, sir. ASIDO: May we request, your Honor, that Project No. 31 be marked as Exhibit "R", your Honor.64
From the foregoing, it is clear that when Plan Psu-4A-004479 surveyed in the name of Saromo was verified and plotted by the Forest Management Service in the corresponding land classification map, it falls on Project No. 38-A, Block C, of the Land Classification (LC) Map No. 3276 (Exh. "L") certified on June 29, 1987, which is forest land (permanent forest) within the foreshore area of Calatagan, Batangas.66
[Atty. Paciano B. Balita (to witness)] Q Did you see before that the property, subject of this suit, is located at Calatagan, Batangas? A According to our findings, when the property in question was projected, the foreshore area is within the Municipality of Calatagan, sir. Q What is the basis of your findings? A Based on our projection with the land classification map, it appears that it falls within the foreshore area of the Municipality of Calatagan. There is a technical data. The land classification map has a latitude and longtitude. The land in question is also provided with that geographic coordinate so we computed that, so by means of that coordinate, we can project on the land classification map where the property could be located or could fall, sir. Q So, your basis was a technical data? A Yes, sir. x x x x Q The torrens title of OCT No. P-331, from the description, would you still insist that the property could be traced as indicated in the title? A The title states that this is located in Lian, however, when we issued a certification that was based on the land classification map, that was issued sometime in 1987, so the survey appears to be executed earlier than what the land classification map was issued, sir.65
Saromo could not have first occupied the subject land in 1944 as indicated in his sworn Application for Free Patent and in the investigation report, because he bought the subject land in 1967 at the earliest or 1969 at the latest, and he was then 44 or 46 years old.
[Atty. Paciano Balita (to witness)] Q Since when have you been occupying this property, subject of this suit? A When I purchased the adjacent land, it was [in] 1967 and some of it was in the year 1969, sir. x x x x Q By the way, in your affidavit or application it is stated here that when you submitted an application you were only 11 years old, what can you say to that? A No, sir. I was already 44 or 46 years old. Q Why it was indicated here that you were 11 years old, who prepared this? A It was the surveyor and it was a pro forma of the Bureau of Lands. I believed that is a clerical error. It is impossible that I was only 11 years old because I'm not in a position to purchase a lot yet, sir. Q That was in 1980? A Yes, sir. Q And now, 2004 that is 24 years ago? A Yes, sir. Q How old are you now? A 69, sir. This coming March I'll be 70 years old.73
SEC. 91. The statements made in the application shall be considered as essential conditions and parts of any concession, title, or permit issued on the basis of such application, and any false statement therein or omission of facts altering, changing, or modifying the consideration of the facts set forth in such statements, and any subsequent modification, alteration, or change of the material facts set forth in the application shall ipso facto produce the cancellation of the concession, title, or permit granted. It shall be the duty of the Director of Lands, from time to time and whenever he may deem it advisable, to make the necessary investigations for the purpose of ascertaining whether the material facts set out in the application are true, or whether they continue to exist and are maintained and preserved in good faith, and for the purposes of such investigation, the Director of Lands is hereby empowered to issue subpoenas or subpoena duces tecum and, if necessary, to obtain compulsory process from the courts. In every investigation made in accordance with this section, the existence of bad faith, fraud, concealment, or fraudulent and illegal modification of essential facts shall be presumed if the grantee or possessor of the land shall refuse or fail to obey a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum lawfully issued by the Director of Lands or his authorized delegates or agents, or shall refuse or fail to give direct and specific answers to pertinent questions, and on the basis of such presumption, an order of cancellation may issue without further proceedings.As mentioned above, there are several discrepancies in the documents relative to Saromo's free patent application, which indicate incorrect and misleading facts and statements. Taken together, they can be considered as "false statements" on the essential conditions for the grant of the free patent in favor of Saromo, and as such, they ipso facto justify the cancellation of the free patent and the corresponding Torrens certificate of title issued to him.
Reversion is an action where the ultimate relief sought is to revert the land back to the government under the Regalian doctrine. Considering that the land subject of the action originated from a grant by the government, its cancellation therefore is a matter between the grantor and the grantee.75 In Republic v. Guerrero,76 the Court gave a more general statement that "this remedy of reversion can only be availed of in cases of fraudulent or unlawful inclusion of the land in patents or certificates of title."77 Nonetheless, the Court recognized in Republic v. Mangotara,78 that there were instances when it granted reversion for reasons other than fraud:The Court further observed in Hachero:x x x. In Estate of the Late Jesus S. Yujuico v. Republic (Yujuico case), reversion was defined as an action which seeks to restore public land fraudulently awarded and disposed of to private individuals or corporations to the mass of public domain. It bears to point out, though, that the Court also allowed the resort by the Government to actions for reversion to cancel titles that were void for reasons other than fraud, i.e., violation by the grantee of a patent of the conditions imposed by law; and lack of jurisdiction of the Director of Lands to grant a patent covering inalienable forest land or portion of a river, even when such grant was made through mere oversight.79 [Emphasis Supplied]In the case at bench, although the Republic's action for cancellation of patent and title and for reversion was not based on fraud or misrepresentation on the part of Hachero, his title could still be cancelled and the subject land reverted back to the State because the grant was made through mistake or oversight. x x x80
At any rate, it is a time-honored principle that the statute of limitations or the lapse of time does not run against the State. Jurisprudence also recognizes the State's immunity from estoppel as a result of the mistakes or errors of its officials and agents. These well established principles apply in the case at bench. The Court in Republic v. Roxas elucidated:Since, at the very least, the government officials concerned in the processing and approval of Saromo's free patent application erred or were mistaken in granting a free patent over unclassified public forest land, which could not be registered under the Torrens system and over which the Director of Lands had no jurisdiction, the free patent issued to Saromo ought to be cancelled. In the same vein, the Torrens title issued pursuant to the invalid free patent should likewise be cancelled.x x x x
Be that as it may, the mistake or error of the officials or agents of the [Bureau of Lands] in this regard cannot be invoked against the government with regard to property of the public domain. It has been said that the State cannot be estopped by the omission, mistake or error of its officials or agents.
It is well-recognized that if a person obtains a title under the Public Land Act which includes, by oversight, lands which cannot be registered under the Torrens system, or when the Director of Lands did not have jurisdiction over the same because it is a public domain, the grantee does not, by virtue of the said certificate of title alone, become the owner of the land or property illegally included. Otherwise stated, property of the public domain is incapable of registration and its inclusion in a title nullifies that title.81
Endnotes:
* Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 2539 dated February 28, 2018.
1Rollo, pp. 9-62, excluding Annexes.
2 Id. at 64-76. Penned by Associate Justice Pampio A. Abarintos, with Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Sixto C. Marella, Jr. concurring.
3 Special Twelfth Division.
4Rollo, pp. 79-97. Penned by Vice-Executive Judge Elihu A. Ybañez.
5 Id. at 78 to 78-A.
6 Id. at 64-68.
7 Id. at 79-97.
8 Id. at 97.
9 Also spelled as Guevarra in some parts of the records.
10Rollo, p. 93.
11 Id. at 93-94.
12 Id. at 94.
13 Id.
14 DECLARING CERTAN ISLANDS, COVES AND PENINSULAS IN THE PHILIPPINES AS TOURIST ZONES AND MARINE RESERVE UNDER THE ADMINISTRATION AND CONTROL OF THE PHILIPPINE TOURISM AUTHORITY, November 10, 1978.
15Rollo, p. 95.
16 See id.
17 Id. at 96-97.
18 Id. at 70.
19 Id. at 64-76.
20 Id. at 76.
21 Id. at 73.
22 Id. at 73-74.
23 Id. at 75.
24 Id. at 74.
25 Id. at 75.
26 Id. at 78 to 78-A.
27 Id. at 204-207.
28 Id. at 28.
29Republic v. Sps. Tan, 676 Phil. 337, 351 (2011), citing Philippine National Oil Company v. Maglasang, 591 Phil. 534, 544-545 (2008).
30Co v. Vargas, 676 Phil. 463, 471 (2011), citing Development Bank of the Philippines v. Traders Royal Bank, 642 Phil. 547, 556-557 (2010).
31Rollo, pp. 30-31.
32 Proclamation No. 1801, No. 1.
33 Proclamation No. 1801.
34Rollo, p. 95.
35 REVISING THE CHAPTER OF THE PHILIPPINE TOURISM AUTHORITY CREATED UNDER PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 189, DATED MAY 11, 1973, October 2, 1974.
36 AN ACT DECLARING A NATIONAL POLICY FOR TOURISM AS AN ENGINE OF INVESTMENT, EMPLOYMENT, GROWTH AND NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, AND STRENGTHENING THE DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM AND ITS ATTACHED AGENCIES TO EFFECTIVELY AND EFFICIENTLY IMPLEMENT THAT POLICY, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, May 12, 2009.
37 RA 9593, Sec. 60.
38 "Increasing the Resilience of Marine Ecosystems: Creating and Managing Marine Protected Areas in the Philippines" by Karin Post, Marine Conservation Philippines, <https:/www.marineconservationphilippines.org/wp-content/uploads/Marine-Protected-Areas-in-thePhilippines.pdf>, p. 6 (last accessed on January 26, 2018).
39 Id.
40 Records (Vol. I), p. 28.
41 Id. at 28-29.
42 Id. at 28; emphasis and underscoring supplied.
43Rollo, pp. 73-74.
44 TSN, February 23, 2004, p. 23.
45 Id. at 18-19.
46Rollo, p. 74.
47 Exh. "26" (as corrected), formerly marked Exh. "15," records (Vol. II), pp. 415-417.
48 Exh. "16," id. at 402.
49 TSN, September 13, 2004, p. 8.
50 With "235" written above 225. Exh. "26," supra note 47, at 415.
51 TSN, September 13, 2004, p. 18.
52 589 Phil. 156 (2008).
53 CONSTITUTION (1987), Art. XII, Sec. 3; CONSTITUTION (1973), Art. XIV, Sec. 10, as amended; and CONSTITUTION (1935), Art. XIII, Sec. 1.
54Republic v. Naguiat, 515 Phil. 560, 564 (2006).
55 211 Phil. 260 (1983).
56 Id. at 265.
57Republic v. Court of Appeals, 238 Phil. 475, 482 (1987).
58The Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources v. Yap, supra note 52, at 191-192.
59 531 Phil. 602, 616-617 (2006).
60Director of Lands v. IAC, 292 Phil. 341, 352 (1993), citing Yngson v. Sec. of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 208 Phil. 374, 379 (1983); Republic v. CA, 188 Phil. 142 (1980).
61Director of Lands v. CA, 214 Phil. 606, 610 (1984); Adorable v. Director of Forestry, 107 Phil. 401, 404 (1960); Republic v. CA, 178 Phil. 530, 537 (1979).
62Director of Lands v. CA, id. at 609.
63Director of Lands v. IAC, supra note 60, at 350.
64 TSN, March 10, 2003, pp. 5-16, 26-29; underscoring and emphasis supplied.
65 TSN, May 26, 2003, 12-15.
66 See Purpose of Offer of Exhs. "J" and "L," records (Vol. II), pp. 262 and 263.
67 Id. at 263.
68 See Commonwealth Act No. 141, Sec. 44.
69 Records (Vol. II), p. 415.
70 Id. at 414.
71 Id. at 415.
72 Records (Vol. I), p. 22. The Application for Free Patent indicates that Saromo first occupied and cultivated by himself in 1944 and he entered upon and began cultivation of the subject land in 1944.
73 TSN, January 26, 2004, pp. 17-21.
74 785 Phil. 784 (2016).
75Republic v. Roxas, 723 Phil. 279, 308 (2013).
76 520 Phil. 296 (2006).
77 Id. at 314.
78 638 Phil. 353 (2010).
79 Id. at 461.
80 Supra note 74, at 795-796.
81 Id. at 797-799.