THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 195026. February 22, 2016.]

CENTRAL MINDANAO UNIVERSITY, represented by its President,

DR. MARIA LUISA R. SOLIVEN , petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, represented by the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources , respondent.

DECISION

PERALTA , J : p

For this Court's resolution is a petition for review on certiorari dated January 14,
2011 led by petitioner Central Mindanao University (CMU), seeking to reverse and set
aside the Decision 1 dated December 30, 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA), which
annulled the Decision 2 dated December 22, 1971, the Amended Decision 3 dated
October 7, 1972 and the Second Amended Decision 4 dated September 12, 1974
rendered by the then Court of First Instance (CFI), 15th Judicial District, Branch II of
Bukidnon and annulled the Decrees No. N-154065, N-154066 and N-154067 issued in
favor of petitioner and the Original Certi cate of Title (OCT) No. 0-160, OCT No. 0-161
and OCT No. 0-162 registered in petitioner's name on January 29, 1975.
The facts follow:
Petitioner Central Mindanao University (CMU) is an agricultural educational
institution owned and run by the State established by virtue of Republic Act No. 4498. 5
It is represented by its President, Dr. Maria Luisa R. Soliven in accordance with CMU
Board of Regents Resolution No. 02, s. 2011. 6
The subjects of the controversy are two parcels of land situated at Musuan,
Maramag, Bukidnon identi ed as "Sheet 1, Lot 1 of Ir-1031-D" consisting of 20,619,175
square meters, and "Sheet 2, Lot 2 of Ir-1031-D" consisting of 13,391,795 square
meters, more or less. 7
In 1946, CMU took possession of the subject parcels of land and started
construction for the school site upon the con rmation of the Secretary of Public
Instruction. 8 However, during the nal survey in 1952, CMU discovered that there were
several adverse claimants, holders, possessors and occupants of the portions of lots
identified as school sites. 9
On January 16, 1958, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture
and Natural Resources and pursuant to the provisions of Section 83 10 of
Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 141, otherwise known as Public Land Act, President
Carlos P. Garcia issued Proclamation No. 476 11 which reserved certain portions of the
public domain in Musuan, Maramag, Bukidnon for petitioner CMU's (formerly Mindanao
Agricultural College) site purposes. 12 The said parcels of land were withdrawn from
sale or settlement and reserved for CMU's school site purposes, "subject to private
rights, if any there be." CAIHTE

In a letter dated October 27, 1960, the Director of Lands Zoilo Castrillo formally
requested the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources that he be authorized
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 under Section 87 of C.A. No. 141, to le in the CFI of Bukidnon an application for the
compulsory registration of the parcels of land reserved by President Garcia under
Proclamation No. 476 as CMU's school site purposes. 13
In the rst indorsement dated November 9, 1960, the Of ce of the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources, through its Undersecretary Salvador F. Cunanan,
forwarded to the Executive Secretary a recommendation that the Director of Lands be
authorized to file the said application. 14
Thereafter, the Of ce of the President, through the Assistant Executive Secretary
Enrique C. Quema, in the second indorsement dated December 12, 1960, authorized
and directed the Director of Lands to le the necessary petition in the CFI of Bukidnon
for the compulsory registration of the parcels of land reserved for CMU. 15
Department Legal Counsel Alejandro V. Recto, in the indorsement dated
December 28, 1960, communicated the said directive and authority granted to the
Director of Lands to file the application for compulsory registration. 16
On January 31, 1961, the Director of Lands led a petition with the then Court of
First Instance of Bukidnon for the settlement and adjudication of the title of the parcels
of land reserved in favor of CMU, and for the determination of the rights of adverse
claimants in relation to the reservation of the land. 17
The cadastral court, in its Decision dated December 22, 1971 in Land
Registration Case Cadastral Rec. No. 414, declared that the subject parcels of land as
public land included in the reservation for CMU, and be registered in its name, except
for specified portions adjudicated to other persons. 18 The court also gave the other 18
claimants an opportunity to acquire full ownership in the subject parcels of land. 19
Hence, the court reduced the claim of CMU to 3,041 hectares of total land area. 20 The
dispositive portion of the decision reads:
In view of the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered
declaring Lot No. 1 containing an approximate area of 20,619,175 square
meters and Lot No. 2 containing an area of 13,391,795 square meters, both
situated in the barrio of Musuan, municipality of Maramag, Bukidnon, as
described in the survey plans and technical descriptions approved by the
Director of Lands as IR-1031-D, marked as Exhibits "D" and "D-1" of the Central
Mindanao University, as public land included in the reservation in favor of said
University by virtue of Proclamation No. 476, series of 1958, of the President of
the Philippines, which may be registered in its name, except such portions
hereinbelow specified which are adjudicated in favor of the following:
1. Venancio Olohoy, married, and Esmeralda Lauga, married
to Julio Sagde, both of legal ages and residents of Valencia,
Bukidnon — 17.75 hectares of Lot No. 1 as shown in the survey
plan (Exh. "D");
2. Martina Songkit, of legal age, married to Martin Binanos
and resident of Maramag, Bukidnon — 3 hectares of Lot No. 2 as
shown in the plan Exh. "D-1";
3. Pablo Saldivar, widower, of legal age and resident of
Dologon, Maramag, Bukidnon — 12 hectares of Lot No. 2 as
indicated in the survey plan Exh. "D-1" above-mentioned;
4. Fernando Bungcas, married to Feliciana Gayonan and
resident of Dologon, Maramag — 6 hectares of Lot No. 2;

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 5. Cerilo Salicubay, married to Valentina Bento, and Virginia
Salicubay, married to Ricardo Tunasan, both of legal ages and
residents of Panalsalan, Maramag, Bukidnon, share and share
alike — 4 hectares of Lot No. 2;
6. Rosita Lupiahan, of legal age, married to Simplicio Alba
and resident of Maramag, Bukidnon — 4 hectares of Lot No. 2.
The areas herein adjudicated to the above-named private individuals
should be surveyed and each lot given a separate number with their
corresponding technical descriptions.
Considering, however, that the Court rejected most of the claim due to the
dubious nature of the occupation of the claimants prior to the take-over by the
College, now University, in 1946 but most of them remained on the land up to
the present time, in order to avoid possible injustice and in line with the national
objective of providing land for the landless, it is hereby recommended that the
claimants enumerated hereunder who led answers and presented evidence
which, nevertheless, was found short of the requirements for a decree of
registration, be given the opportunity to acquire full ownership thereof through a
homestead, or free patent application if they are landless persons, otherwise by
means of a sales application if they are already owners of other pieces of real
estate, after a corresponding amendment of the Executive Proclamation through
the avenues allowed by law. The following claimants may be considered for
that purpose, namely:
1. Geronimo Aniceto and his sister Francisca Aniceto — 12 hectares of
Lot No. 2;
2. Bonifacio Aniceto — 6 hectares of Lot No. 2; DETACa

3. Julita Aniceto — 12 hectares of Lot No. 2;

4. Maximo Nulo — 5 hectares of Lot No. 2;
5. Magno Sepada — 3 hectares of Lot No. 1;
6. Eulogio Guimba — 12 hectares of Lot No. 2;
7. Mario Baguhin and his wife, Treponia Dagoplo — 18 hectares of Lot
No. 2;
8. Aniceto Nayawan — 12 hectares of Lot No. 2;
9. Eduardo Saloay-ay — 13 hectares of Lot No. 2;
10. Arcadio Belmis and his wife Beatriz Lauga — 24 hectares of Lot
No. 1;
11. Vitaliano Lauga — 24 hectares of Lot No. 1;
12. Procopio Abellar — 12 hectares of Lot No. 1;
13. Rufino Dador — 12 hectares of Lot No. 1;
14. Roque Larayan — 12 hectares of Lot No. 1;
15. Benito Lutad — 12 hectares of Lot No. 1;
16. Juliana Pasamonte — 11 hectares of Lot No. 1;
17. Tirso Pimentel — 19 hectares of Lot No. 1; and
18. Dativa P. Velez — 18 hectares of Lot No. 1.
Should the above recommendation be given due course, it is further
suggested that those claimants included in the said recommendation who are
now occupying portions of Lot No. 2 situated above the university grounds on
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 the hillside which they have already denuded, should be transferred to the lower
portions of the land near or along the Pulangi river in order to enable the
University to reforest the hillside to protect the watershed of its irrigation system
and water supply.
After this decision become nal and the portions adjudicated to private
persons have been segregated and their corresponding technical descriptions
provided, the order of the issuance of the corresponding decree and the
certificates of title shall be issued.
SO ORDERED. 21
Upon the submission of the parties of the compromise agreement through a
Joint Manifestation, the cadastral court rendered its Amended Decision dated October
7, 1972 adjudicating in full ownership of some portions of the subject lots to the 29
groups of claimants. 22 A portion of the fallo of the amended decision reads:
WHEREFORE, pursuant to the evidence presented and the compromise
agreement submitted by the parties, the decision rendered by this Court on
December 22, 1971 is hereby AMENDED and another one entered
ADJUDICATING in full ownership to the claimants hereinbelow speci ed the
following portions of the lots in question, to wit:
xxx xxx xxx
The remaining portions of Lots 1 and 2 not otherwise adjudicated to any
of the above-named private claimants are hereby ADJUDICATED in full
ownership to the Central Mindanao State University. It is hereby directed that the
different portions of Lots 1 and 2 hereinabove granted to private claimants
must [be segregated] by a competent surveyor and given their technical
descriptions and corresponding lot numbers for purposes of the issuance of
certificates of title in their favor.
It is, however, ordered that the area adjacent and around or near the
watersheds or sources of Lot No. 2 adjudicated to any of the private claimants
speci ed in the foregoing paragraph may be replaced or substituted to the
Central Mindanao State University with other areas of equal extent in either Lot
1 or 2, should said University desire to do so in order to protect and conserve the
watersheds.
The ndings and resolutions made by the Court in its original decision
not affected by the amendments incorporated elsewhere herein shall stand.
The petition from relief from judgment presented by Lucio Butad which
the Court finds without merit is hereby denied.
Once the decision becomes nal and the subdivision directed in the
preceding paragraph has been accomplished, the order for the issuance of the
corresponding decree of registration and the certi cates of title in favor of each
and every adjudicatee shall likewise issue.
SO ORDERED. 23
Based on the Order made by the court that those portions of the private
claimants in the area adjacent and around, or near the watersheds of Lot No. 2 may be
replaced or substituted by CMU with areas of equal extent, the 16 grantees entered into
an agreement with CMU for the replacement of the areas adjudicated to them with
those outside the watershed vicinity or beyond the area necessary for the proper
development, administration, supervision and utilization of the portion adjudicated to
CMU. 24
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Thereafter, the cadastral court, in its second amendment of the Decision dated
September 12, 1974, ordered that the speci c portions of the subject lots be
adjudicated to the 33 claimants as indicated in their agreement. 25 It also awarded to
CMU Lot 1-S (18,531,671 square meters), Lot 2-A (10,001 square meters), and Lot 2-Q
(12,266,524 square meters). 26 On January 25, 1975, the court issued Decrees No. N-
154065, N-154066, and N-154067 in favor of CMU. 27 Consequently, OCT Nos. 0-160,
0-161 and 0-162 were registered in the name of CMU on January 29, 1975. 28 The
decretal portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, nding said manifestation and agreement of the parties in
order, the dispositive portions of the amended decision rendered by this Court
on October 7, 1972 aforementioned is further amended such that the lots
speci ed hereunder and more particularly indicated in the revised plans and
technical descriptions above-mentioned are hereby adjudicated as follows: aDSIHc

1. To Roque Larayan, Lot 1-A with an area of 120.001 square meters;

2. To Fernanda Bungcas, Lot 1-B with an area of 60.00 square meters;
3. To Tirso Pimentel, Lot 1-C with an area of 190.000 square meters;
4. To Juliana Pasamonte, Lot 1-D with an area of 109.999 square
meters;
5. To Dativa Velez, Lot 1-E with an area of 180.00 square meters;
6. To Mario Bagubin, Lot 1-F with an area of 60.00 square meters;
7. To Triponia Dagoplo, Lot 1-G with an area of 60.001 square meters;
8. To Mario Baguhin, Lot 1-H with an area of 60.001 square meters;
9. To Celerina Guimba, Lot 1-I with an area of 30.001 square meters;
10. To Constantino Baston, Lot 1-J with an area of 30.001 square
meters;
11. To Maximo Nulo, Lot 1-K with an area of 49.999 square meters;
12. To Beatriz Lauga, Lot 1-L with an area of 100.00 square meters;
13. To Evorcio Olohoy, Lot 1-M with an area of 177.500 square meters;
14. To Arcadio Belmis, Lot 1-N with an area of 140.000 square meters;
15. To Luciano Namuag, Lot 1-O with an area of 240.000 square
meters;
16. To Vitaliano Lauga, Lot 1-P with an area of 240.000 square meters;
17. To Rufino Dador, Lot 1-Q with an area of 120.00 square meters;
18. To Procopio Abellar, Lot 1-B with an area of 120.001 square
meters;
19. To Eduardo Saloay-ay, Lot 2-B with an area of 130.000 square
meters;
20. To Francisco Anecito, Lot 2-C with an area of 120.000 square
meters;
21. To Julita Anecito, Lot 2-D with an area of 60.000 square meters;
22. To Vicente Buntan, Lot 2-E with an area of 30.000 square meters;
23. To Victoriano Lacorda, Lot 2-F with an area of 130.000 square
meters;
24. To Cerilo Salicubay, Lot 2-G with an area of 40.000 square meters;

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 25. To Julita Anecito, Lot 2-H with an area of 60.000 square meters;
26. To Benito Butad, Lot 2-I with an area of 120.000 square meters;
27. To Pablo Zaldivar, Lot 2-J with an area of 120.000 square meters;
28. To Magno Sepada, Lot 2-K with an area of 30.000 square meters;
29. To Anecito Nayawan, Lot 2-L with an area of 120.000 square
meters;
30. To Bonifacio Anecito, Lot 2-M with an area of 60.001 square
meters;
31. To Eulogio Guimba, Lot 2-N with an area of 120.001 square
meters;
32. To Martina Songkit, Lot 2-O with an area of 30.000 square meters;
33. To Rosita Lapianan, Lot 2-P with an area of 40.000 square meters;
34. To Central Mindanao State University; Lot 1-S with an area of
18,531.671 square meters;
35. To Central Mindanao State University; Lot 2-A with an area of
10.001 square meters;
36. To Central Mindanao State University, Lot 2-Q with an area of
12,266,524 square meters;
The ndings and resolutions made by this Court in its original decision
not affected by the amendments incorporated herein shall remain in force.
Once this decision becomes nal, the order for the issuance of the
corresponding decrees of registration and the certi cation of title in favor of
each and every adjudicates shall likewise issue. ETHIDa

SO ORDERED. 29
On December 15, 2003, the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources through the Of ce of the Solicitor
General (OSG), led before the CA a petition for annulment of the Decision dated
September 12, 1974 by the cadastral court granting in favor of CMU the title to the
subject parcels of land.
The Republic argued that the cadastral court should have summarily dismissed
the registration proceedings since the Solicitor General did not sign or le the petition
for compulsory registration of the parcels of land, as provided in Sections 53 30 and 87
31 of Commonwealth Act No. 141. 32 It also alleged that the subject parcels of land are
inalienable lands of public domain. 33 It maintained that the cadastral court did not
acquire jurisdiction over the res; hence, the entire proceedings of the case should be
null and void.
Accordingly, the CA ruled in favor of the respondent. The dispositive portion of
the decision reads:
ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition is GRANTED. The 1) Decision dated
December 22, 1971, 2) Amended Decision dated October 7, 1972 and 3) Second
Amended Decision dated September 12, 1974, all rendered by the Court of First
Instance, 15th Judicial District, Branch II, Bukidnon Province, in "L.R.C. Cad. Rec.
No. 414, Sec. 87 of Commonwealth Act 141, Ir-1031-D (Lots 1 & 2), Maramag,
Bukidnon, insofar as they adjudicated a portion of the land covered by
Proclamation No. 476 to the Central Mindanao University, are declared NULL
and VOID.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Consequently, 1) Decrees No. N-154065, N-154066 and N-154067 issued
in favor of the University on January 24, 1975; and 2) Original Certi cates of
Title (OCT) No. 0-160 (covering Lot 1-S), No. 0-161 (for Lot 2-A) and No. 0-162
(for Lot 2-Q) registered in the University's name on January 29, 1975, are
likewise declared NULL AND VOID.
SO ORDERED. 34
The CA ruled that there was no suf cient proof of a positive act by the
government, such as presidential proclamation, executive order, administrative action,
investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators, or a legislative act or statute,
which declared the land of the public domain alienable and disposable. 35 The
documents adduced by CMU did not expressly declare that the covered land is already
alienable and disposable and that one of such documents was merely signed by the
Assistant Executive Secretary. 36
According to the CA, CMU was unable to prove that the subject land ceased to
have the status of a reservation. 37 However, the CA clarified that despite nullification of
the titles in its favor, CMU is still the rightful possessor of the subject property by virtue
of Proclamation No. 476. 38
Hence, the petitioner CMU led the present petition before this Court raising the
sole issue:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals:
1. committed a serious and grave error and gravely abused its discretion on a
question of law, and
2. ruled and decided a question of substance in a way and manner not in
accord with law and applicable decisions of this Honorable Court.
in granting the petition for annulment of judgment led by respondent on the
ground that the cadastral court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or the
speci c res of the subject matter of the petition below for the reason that the
subject lands are inalienable and non-disposable lands of the public domain. 39
CMU maintains that the CA has completely misconstrued the facts of the
cadastral proceedings since the documents it presented showed that the subject
property has already been declared, classi ed, and certi ed by the Of ce of the
President as alienable and disposable lands. 40
Particularly, CMU alleges that the speci c and express authorization and the
directive, as embodied in the Second Indorsement 41 dated December 12, 1960, from
the President, through the then Assistant Executive Secretary Enrique C. Quema,
authorizing the Director of Lands to file the necessary petition in the CFI of Bukidnon for
compulsory registration of the parcels of land reserved for CMU's site purposes is
equivalent to a declaration and certi cation by the Of ce of the President that the
subject parcels of land are alienable and disposable. 42
CMU has cited the case of Republic v. Judge De la Rosa 43 wherein the then
President Quirino issued on June 22, 1951 a directive authorizing the Director of Lands
to le the necessary petition in the CFI of Isabela for the settlement and adjudication of
the titles to the tract of land involved in the Gamu Public Lands Subdivision, Pls-62,
Case 5. This Court held that the said presidential directive was equivalent to a
declaration and certification that the subject land area is alienable and disposable. 44
This Court finds the instant petition without merit.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the State,
and that the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land and charged
with the conservation of such patrimony. 45 Also, the doctrine states that all lands not
otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to
the State. 46 Consequently, the person applying for registration has the burden of proof
to overcome the presumption of ownership of lands of the public domain. 47
To prove that a land is alienable, the existence of a positive act of the
government, such as presidential proclamation or an executive order; an administrative
action; investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a legislative act or a
statute declaring the land as alienable and disposable must be established. 48 Hence, a
public land remains part of the inalienable public domain unless it is shown to have
been reclassified and alienated by the State to a private person. 49 cSEDTC

As noted, Proclamation No. 476 issued by then President Garcia, decreeing

certain portions of the public domain in Musuan, Maramag, Bukidnon for CMU's site
purposes, was issued pursuant to Section 83 of C.A. No. 141. Being reserved as CMU's
school site, the said parcels of land were withdrawn from sale and settlement, and
reserved for CMU. Under Section 88 of the same Act, the reserved parcels of land
would ordinarily be inalienable and not subject to occupation, entry, sale, lease or other
disposition, subject to an exception, viz.:
Section 88. The tract or tracts of land reserved under the provisions
of section eighty-three shall be non-alienable and shall not be subject to
occupation, entry, sale, lease, or other disposition until again declared
alienable under the provisions of this Act or by proclamation of the
President. (Emphasis supplied)
In the case of Navy Of cers' Village Association, Inc. v. Republic , 50 it was held
that parcels of land classi ed as reservations for public or quasi-public uses: (1) are
non-alienable and non-disposable in view of Section 88 (in relation with Section 8) of
C.A. No. 141, speci cally declaring them as non-alienable and not subject to
disposition; and (2) they remain public domain lands until they are actually disposed of
in favor of private persons. 51 In other words, lands of the public domain classi ed as
reservations remain to be property of the public dominion until withdrawn from the
public or quasi-public use for which they have been reserved, by act of Congress or by
proclamation of the President, or otherwise positively declared to have been converted
to patrimonial property. 52
In the case at bar, CMU relies on the Court's ruling in the De la Rosa 53 case that
the directive from the President authorizing the Director of Lands to le the necessary
petition for the compulsory registration of the parcels of land so reserved is the
equivalent of the declaration and certi cation that the subject land is alienable and
disposable. As such, CMU avows that the subject lots, as declared alienable and
disposable, are properly registered in its name.
This Court nds that the De la Rosa case does not apply in the instant petition
because of the varying factual settings, to wit:
a. In De la Rosa, the Mallig Plains Reservation was reserved by the President
for settlement purposes under the administration of National Land
Settlement Administration (NLSA) , later replaced by Land Settlement and
Development Corporation (LASEDECO) , while the subject lots in the present
case was reserved for educational purposes, e.g., as CMU's school site,
under the administration of the Board of Trustees of CMU.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 b. The National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration, when it
replaced LASEDECO, excluded the Mallig Plains Reservation among the
properties it needed in carrying out the purposes and objectives of Republic
Act No. 1160, 54 thus, the Reservation eventually reverted to and became
public agricultural land. There was no evidence that CMU ceased to use
and occupy the reserved lots in Musuan, Maramag, Bukidnon as its school
site or that its public purpose is abandoned, for the lots to revert to and
become public agricultural land.
c. At the time that President Quirino issued the directive, the Gamu Public
Land Subdivision in the Mallig Plains Reservation was not reserved for
public or quasi-public purpose or has ceased to be so. On the other hand,
the subject lots in Bukidnon are reserved for public purpose when the
President, through the Assistant Executive Secretary, issued the said
directive.
d. In the De la Rosa case, the private respondent was a quali ed private
claimant with the requisite period of possession of the subject residential
lot in his favor. Meanwhile, CMU is not a private claimant of the land so
reserved.
It was explicated in De la Rosa 55 that the authority of the President to issue such
a directive, held as equivalent to a declaration and certi cation that the subject land
area is alienable and disposable, finds support in Section 7 of C.A. No. 141, to wit:
Sec. 7. For purposes of the administration and disposition of
alienable or disposable public lands , the President, upon recommendation
by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, shall from time to time declare
what lands are open to disposition or concession under this Act. (Emphasis
supplied).
However, the said directive by the President is limited to those enumerated in
Section 8 of C.A. No. 141, which provides that:
Section 8. Only those lands shall be declared open to disposition
or concession which have been of cially delimited and classi ed and,
when practicable, 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 , or which, having been reserved or appropriated, have ceased to
be so. However, 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. (Emphases supplied) SDAaTC

As can be gleaned from the above provision, the lands which can be declared
open to disposition or concession are those which have been of cially delimited and
classi ed, or when practicable surveyed; those not reserved for public or quasi-public
purpose; those not appropriated by the Government; those which have not become
private property in any manner; those which have no private right authorized and
recognized by C.A. No. 141 or any other valid law may be claimed; or those which have
ceased to be reserved or appropriated.
For the said President's directive to le the necessary petition for compulsory
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 registration of parcels of land be considered as an equivalent of a declaration that the
land is alienable and disposable, the subject land, among others, should not have been
reserved for public or quasi-public purposes.
Therefore, the said directive on December 12, 1960 cannot be considered as a
declaration that said land is alienable and disposable. Unlike in De la Rosa, the lands,
having been reserved for public purpose by virtue of Proclamation No. 476, have not
ceased to be so at the time the said directive was made. Hence, the lots did not revert
to and become public agricultural land for them to be the subject of a declaration by
the President that the same are alienable and disposable.
We have ruled in the case of CMU v. DARAB 56 that the CMU land reservation is
not alienable and disposable land of public domain, viz.:
It is our opinion that the 400 hectares ordered segregated by the DARAB
and af rmed by the Court of Appeals in its Decision dated August 20, 1990, is
not covered by the [Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program] CARP because:
(1) It is not alienable and disposable land of the
public domain;
(2) The CMU land reservation is not in excess of
specific limits as determined by Congress;
(3) It is private land registered and titled in the name of
its lawful owner, the CMU;
(4) It is exempt from coverage under Section 10 of R.A.
6657 because the lands are actually, directly and exclusively used
and found to be necessary for school site and campus, including
experimental farm stations for educational purposes, and for
establishing seed and seedling research and pilot production
centers.
The inalienable character of the lands as part of the long term functions of
autonomous agricultural educational institution is reiterated in CMU v. Executive
Secretary: 57
It did not matter that it was President Arroyo who, in this case, attempted
by proclamation to appropriate the lands for distribution to indigenous peoples
and cultural communities. As already stated, the lands by their character have
become inalienable from the moment President Garcia dedicated them
for CMU's use in scienti c and technological research in the eld of
agriculture. They have ceased to be alienable public lands . 58
This Court is not unmindful of its earlier pronouncement in CMU v. DARAB that
the land reservation is a private land registered and titled in the name of its lawful
owner, the CMU. This pronouncement, which is now being argued by CMU as one of its
bases in convincing this Court that the subject property is owned by it and already
alienable, is specious. The 1992 CMU case merely enumerated the reasons why the
said portion of the property is beyond the coverage of CARP. Moreover, the fact that
the Court had already settled the inalienable character of the subject property as part of
the long term functions of the autonomous agricultural educational institution in the
case of CMU v. DARAB and reiterated in CMU v. Executive Secretary , belies CMU's
contention that this Court has recognized that the said land is a private property or that
the land is alienable and disposable.
As to what constitutes alienable and disposable land of the public domain, this
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Court expounds in its pronouncements in Secretary of the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources v. Yap: 59
xxx xxx xxx
A positive act declaring land as alienable and disposable is required. In
keeping with the presumption of State ownership, the Court has time and again
emphasized that there must be a positive act of the government, such as an
of cial proclamation, declassifying inalienable public land into disposable land
for agricultural or other purposes. In fact, Section 8 of CA No. 141 limits
alienable or disposable lands only to those lands which have been "of cially
delimited and classified."
The burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of State ownership
of the lands of the public domain is on the person applying for registration (or
claiming ownership), who must prove that the land subject of the application is
alienable or disposable. To overcome this presumption, incontrovertible
evidence must be established that the land subject of the application (or claim)
is alienable or disposable. There must still be a positive act declaring land of the
public domain as alienable and disposable. To prove that the land subject of an
application for registration is alienable, the applicant must establish the
existence of a positive act of the government such as a presidential
proclamation or an executive order; an administrative action; investigation
reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a legislative act or a statute. The
applicant may also secure a certi cation from the government that the land
claimed to have been possessed for the required number of years is alienable
and disposable. 60
In the case at bar, CMU failed to establish, through incontrovertible evidence, that
the land reservations registered in its name are alienable and disposable lands of public
domain. Aside from the series of indorsements regarding the ling of the application
for the compulsory registration of the parcels of land and the said directive from the
President, CMU did not present any proof of a positive act of the government declaring
the said lands alienable and disposable. acEHCD

For lack of proof that the said land reservations have been reclassi ed as
alienable and disposable, the said lands remain part of inalienable public domain,
hence; they are not registrable under Torrens system.
This Court will not discuss the other issue raised by CMU, e.g., the ling of the
petition for cadastral proceeding was pursuant to the written consent, authorization
and directive of the OSG, as the same was not discussed in the assailed Decision of the
CA. This Court also dismisses the other issue raised — that the titles in CMU's name
were singled out by respondent — for lack of evidence.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari dated January 14, 2011 led
by petitioner Central Mindanao University is hereby DENIED . The Decision dated
December 30, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 81301 is hereby
AFFIRMED . The proceedings in the Court of First Instance, 15th Judicial District,
Branch II of Bukidnon is NULL and VOID . Accordingly, Original Certi cate of Title Nos.
0-160, OCT No. 0-161 and OCT No. 0-162 issued in the name of petitioner, are
CANCELLED . Sheet 1, Lot 1 of Ir-1031-D and Sheet 2, Lot 2 of Ir-1031-D are ORDERED
REVERTED to the public domain.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., Perez, Reyes and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja, with Associate Justices Edgardo T. Lloren
and Ramon Paul L. Hernando, concurring, rollo, pp. 51-66.
2. Penned by Judge Abundio Z. Arrieta, CA rollo, pp. 30-71.

3. Id. at 72-81.
4. Id. at 82-98.

5. AN ACT TO CONVERT MINDANAO AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE INTO CENTRAL MINDANAO

UNIVERSITY AND TO AUTHORIZE THE APPROPRIATION OF ADDITIONAL FUNDS
THEREFOR.
6. Rollo, pp. 5-6.

7. Id. at 52.

8. Id. at 9.
9. Id. at 11.

10. Section 83. Upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, the
President may designate by proclamation any tract or tracts of land of the public
domain as reservations for the use of the Commonwealth of the Philippines or of any
of its branches, or of the inhabitants thereof, in accordance with regulations
prescribed for this purpose, or for quasi-public uses or purposes when the public
interest requires it, including reservations for highways, rights of way for railroads,
hydraulic power sites, irrigation systems, communal pastures or leguas comunales,
public parks, public quarries, public shponds, workingmen's village and other
improvements for the public benefit.
11. Reserving for the Mindanao Agricultural College Site Purposes Certain Portions of the
Public Domain Situated in the Barrio of Musuan, Municipality of Maramag, Province
of Bukidnon, Island of Mindanao.
12. Rollo, p. 11.
13. Id. at 12.

14. Id. at 13.

15. Id.

16. Id. at 14.

17. CA rollo, pp. 104-106.

18. Rollo, pp. 52-53.

19. Id. at 53.

20. Supra note 11.

21. Supra note 2, at 69-71.

22. Supra note 19.

23. Supra note 3, at 78-81.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 24. Supra note 4, at 91.
25. Id. at 94-98.

26. Id. at 98.

27. Rollo, p. 54.

28. Id.

29. CA rollo, pp. 94-98.

30. Section 53. It shall be lawful for the Director of Lands, whenever in the opinion of the
President the public interests shall require it, to cause to be filed in the proper Court of
First Instance, through the Solicitor-General or the of cer acting in his stead, a
petition against the holder, claimant, possessor, or occupant of any land who shall
not have voluntarily come in under the provisions of this chapter or of the Land
Registration Act, stating in substance that the title of such holder, claimant,
possessor, or occupant is open to discussion; or that the boundaries of any such land
which has not been brought into court as aforesaid are open to question; or that it is
advisable that the title to such lands be settled and adjudicated, and praying that the
title to any such land or the boundaries thereof or the right to occupancy thereof be
settled and adjudicated. The judicial proceedings under this section shall be in
accordance with the laws on adjudication of title in cadastral proceedings.
31. Section 87. If all the lands included in the proclamation of the President are not registered
under the Land Registration Act, the Solicitor-General, if requested to do so by the
Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, shall proceed in accordance with the
provision of section fifty-three of this Act.
32. CA rollo, pp. 14 and 16.

33. Id. at 15.

34. Rollo, pp. 65-66.

35. Id. at 59-60.

36. Id. at 60.

37. Id.
38. Id. at 65.

39. Id. at 21.

40. Id. at 23.

41. Id. at 70.

42. Id. at 26.

43. 255 Phil. 11 (1989).

44. Republic v. Judge De la Rosa, supra, at 22.

45. Republic v. Capco de Tensuan, G.R. No. 171136, October 23, 2013, 708 SCRA 367, 382.

46. Id.

47. Id.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 48. Republic of the Philippines, represented by Commander Raymond Alpuerto of the Naval
Base Camillo Osias, Port San Vicente, Sta. Ana, Cagayan v. Rev. Claudio R. Cortez,
Sr., G.R. No. 197472, September 7, 2015.
49. Id.

50. G.R. No. 177168, August 3, 2015.

51. Navy Officers' Village Association, Inc. v. Republic, supra.

52. Id.

53. Supra note 42.

54. AN ACT TO FURTHER IMPLEMENT THE FREE DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS
OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AS PROVIDED FOR IN COMMONWEALTH ACT NUMBERED
SIX HUNDRED AND NINETY-ONE, AS AMENDED, TO ABOLISH THE LAND
SETTLEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CREATED UNDER EXECUTIVE
ORDER NUMBERED THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY-FIVE, DATED OCTOBER TWENTY-
THREE, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY, AND TO CREATE IN ITS PLACE THE
NATIONAL RESETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION ADMINISTRATION, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES.
55. Supra note 42.

56. G.R. No. 100091, October 22, 1992.

57. 645 Phil. 282 (2010).

58. CMU v. Executive Secretary , supra, at 291. (Emphasis supplied)

59. 589 Phil. 156 (2008).

60. Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources v. Yap , supra, at 182-
183. (Citations and emphasis omitted)

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com