BUREAU OF FORESTRY vs.

COURT OF APPEALS and FILOMENO GALLO

G.R. No. L-37995
August 31, 1987
FACTS:
In 1961, Mercedes Diago applied for the registration of 4 parcels of land situated in Buenavista, Iloilo
containing an approximate area of 30.5 hectares. She alleged she occupied said parcels of land having
bought them from the estate of the late Jose Ma. Nava who, in his lifetime, had bought the lands in turn
from Canuto Gustilo in 1934. The Director of Lands opposed the application on the ground that neither
the applicant nor her predecessors-in-interest have sufficient title over the lands applied for, which could
be registered under the Torrens systems, and that they have never been in open, continuous and
exclusive possession of the said lands for at least 30 years. The Director of Forestry also opposed on the
ground that certain portions of the lands, with an area of approximately 19.4 hectares are mangrove
swamps and are within a Timberland Block.
In 1965, Filomeno Gallo purchased the subject parcels of land from Mercedes Diago, and moved to be
substituted in place of the latter, attaching to his motion an Amended Application for Registration of Title.
Philippine Fisheries Commission also moved to substitute petitioner Bureau of Forestry as oppositor,
since supervision and control of said portion have been transferred from the Bureau of Forestry to the
PFC.
In April 1966, the trial court rendered its decision ordering the registration of the 4 parcels of land in the
name of Filomeno Gallo. It ruled that although the controverted portion of 19.4 hectares are mangrove
and nipa swamps within a Timberland Block, petitioners failed to submit convincing proof that these lands
are more valuable for forestry than for agricultural purposes, and the presumption is that these are
agricultural lands.
ISSUE:
WON the classification of lands of public domain by the Executive Branch of the Government into
agricultural, forest or mineral can be changed or varied by the court. NO
HELD:
Admittedly, the controversial area is within a timberland block classified and certified as such by the
Director of Forestry in 1956. The lands are needed for forest purposes and hence they are portions of the
public domain which cannot be the subject of registration proceedings.
Clearly therefore the land is public land and there is no need for the Director of Forestry to submit
convincing proofs that the land is more valuable for forest purposes than for agriculture.
As provided for under Sec. 6 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, the classification or
reclassification of public lands into alienable or disposable, mineral or forest lands is now a prerogative of
the Executive Department and not of the courts. With these rules, there should be no more room for doubt
that it is not the court which determines the classification of lands of the public domain but the Executive
Branch, through the Office of the President.
Furthermore, respondents cannot claim to have obtained their title by prescription since the
application filed by them necessarily implied an admission that the portions applied for are part of
the public domain and cannot be acquired by prescription, unless the law expressly permits it. It is a rule
of law that possession of forest lands, however long, cannot ripen into private ownership.