MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court (SC) declared yesterday that the island resort of Boracay belongs to the state, and the current residents cannot claim ownership of parcels of land based on years of occupation.
However, the SC said Congress may enact a law to entitle private claimants to acquire title to the lots they occupy or to exempt them from certain legal requirements.
“This Court is constitutionally bound to decide cases based on the evidence presented and the laws applicable,” read the decision.
“As the law and jurisprudence stand, private claimants are ineligible to apply for a
judicial confirmation of title over their occupied portions in Boracay even with their continued possession and considerable investment in the land.”
The SC said private claimants cannot apply for judicial confirmation of imperfect title under Commonwealth Act 141, the Public Land Act and neither do they have vested rights over the lands they occupy.
“The continued possession and considerable investment of private claimants do not automatically give them a vested right in Boracay,” read the decision.
“Nor do these give them a right to apply for a title to the land they are presently occupying.”
The SC said under CA No. 141, the two requisites for judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title are:
• Open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject land by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest under a bona fide claim of ownership since time immemorial; and
• Classification of the land as alienable and disposable land of the public domain.
“The private claimants’ bid for judicial confirmation of imperfect title must fail because of the absence of the second element of alienable and disposable land,” read the decision.
“Private claimants failed to prove the first element of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of their lands in Boracay since June 12, 1945.”
However, the SC said it does not mean private claimants can be evicted from the residential, commercial and other areas they now occupy.
“Neither will this mean the loss of their substantial investments on their occupied alienable lands,” read the decision. “Lack of title does not necessarily mean lack of right to possess.”
The SC said those with lawful possessions may claim good faith as builders of improvements.
“They can take steps to preserve or protect their possession,” read the decision.
“They may look into other modes of applying for original registration of title, such as by homestead or sales patent, subject to the conditions imposed by law. ”
The SC reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the ruling of Kalibo, Aklan Regional Trial Court granting the petition for declaratory relief filed by Mayor Jose Yap, Libertad Talapian, Mila Sumndad, and Aniceto Yap, for the survey of Boracay for titling purposes.
Boracay is reserved forestland
The SC also upheld the validity of Proclamation 1064 of President Arroyo classifying Boracay into reserved forest and agricultural land.
“In issuing Proclamation No. 1064, the government has taken the step necessary to open up the island to private ownership,” read the decision.
“This gesture may not be sufficient to appease some sectors which view the classification of the island partially into a forest reserve as absurd. That the island is no longer overrun by trees, however, does not becloud the vision to protect its remaining forest cover and to strike a healthy balance between progress and ecology.
“Ecological conservation is as important as economic progress.”
The SC said prior to Proclamation 1064, Boracay was an unclassified land of the public domain, which is considered public forest under Presidential Decree 705.
“That the island has already been stripped of its forest cover or that the implementation of Proclamation 1064 will destroy the island’s tourism industry, do not negate its character as public forest,” read the decision.
“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,” the High Court said.
The SC said Proclamation 1801 issued by President Ferdinand Marcos in 1978, or the Philippine Tourism Authority Circular 3-82, did not convert the whole of Boracay into an agricultural land. “The said proclamation covers not only Boracay but 64 other islands, coves, and peninsulas in the Philippines such as Port Galera in Oriental Mindoro, Coron Island, Puerto Princesa in Palawan, and Camiguin Island in Cagayan de Oro,” read the decision.
The SC said it was Proclamation 1064 issued in 2006 which positively declared part of Boracay as alienable and opened the same to private ownership.
“It further stressed that President Arroyo, in issuing such, merely exercised the authority granted to her to classify lands of the public domain, presumably subject to existing vested rights,” read the decision.
The SC said the classification of Boracay as a public forest under PD 705 did not bar the executive from later converting it into agricultural land.
“Boracay still remained an unclassified land of the public domain despite PD 705,” read the decision.
The decision was written by Associate Justice Ruben Reyes, and concurred with by all of the justices, except for Associate Justice Renato Corona who was on leave.