☎️There is a big lesson to be learned from the Supreme Court (SC) decision confirming that Boracay Island is owned by the State: beware of buying properties where the seller can only show tax declarations as these documents do not guarantee ownership of the land.
When the High Court decision becomes final, residential owners in Boracay will have to explore other options--homestead patents, sales patents--if they want to preserve or protect their properties on the island. They may also ask Congress to pass a law that would allow them to acquire titles to their occupied lots.
The SC decision was released on October 8. The claimants have 15 days to file a for motion for reconsideration.
Most of those who possess lands in Boracay do not have original, registered land titles but only hold tax declarations passed from one buyer to another.
Only ten percent of the world-famous tourist destination is titled. The rest of the land claimants availed themselves of the legal remedy under the Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 141, which allows lots be registered in the name of the claimant through “judicial confirmation of imperfect titles.”
But the SC ruled that that land claimants in Boracay did not meet any of the two requirements under this Act.
“Private claimants are not entitled to apply for judicial confirmation of imperfect title under CA No. 141. Neither do they have vested rights over the occupied lands under the said law. These are two requisites for judicial confirmation of imperfect title under CA No. 141,” said the decision penned by Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruben Reyes.
It was a unanimous ruling by 12 SC Justices. Associate justices Antonio Carpio, Eduardo Nachura, and Renato Corona took no part in the decision.
Carpio said he has “relatives who are not parties are similarly situated as the petitioners.”
Nachura did not take since he was involved in the case when he was solicitor general, his post prior to his appointment to the SC.
Corona is on official leave.
☎️Ownership Since Time Immemorial
In case of the absence of titles, land buyers should make sure that the following requirements are met.
The first requirement is 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 or from June 12, 1945 .
The land claimants showed the court tax declarations dating back to 1993. The SC said this is “insufficient.”
“The tax declarations in the name of the private claimants are insufficient to prove the first element of possession. We note that the earliest tax declarations in the name of private claimants were issued in 1993. Being of recent dates, the tax declarations are not sufficient to convince this court that the period of possession and occupation commenced on June 12, 1945 ,” said Reyes.
According to Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Undersecretary Manuel Gerochi, many land buyers have fallen victims to these dubious real estate transactions because of unfamiliarity with our land laws.
“Tax declaration is not a proof of ownership. It’s only a proof of possession,” Gerochi said. Many land buyers have been misled to believe that tax declarations assure the buyer ownership of the land.
“It’s being done all over the country,” he added.
Gerochi said this is what happened to the land claimants in Boracay. “That’s why they are saying they own the land.”
☎️Alienable and Disposable
The second requirement land buyers must check is the classification of the land as alienable and disposable land of the public domain.
The SC upheld the Regalian Doctrine which provides that all lands that were not acquired from the government—either by purchase or by grant—belong to the public domain. This doctrine has been in effect since the Spanish Occupation.
The government has since enforced three land classifications—agricultural land, mineral land, and forest or timber. Out of these three classifications, only agricultural lands are “alienable and disposable.”
The claimants argued that that the island is “deemed agricultural”—and therefore alienable and disposable—because Philippine land laws never classified Boracay Island as mineral land or timber land.
But the SC did not agree.
“A positive act of declaring land as alienable and disposable is required,” the court said. “Matters of land classification or reclassification cannot be assumed. They call for proof."
Ownership of properties in Boracay has been a long battle between the land claimants and the government.
But Gerochi said the SC decision is not a landmark decision. "We have expected that for a long while. It's just a confirmation of our current policies."
☎️Other options
In its ruling, the SC said that even if the Boracay landowners are not eligible to have land titles, it doesn't mean that they will be kicked out of their properties.
The SC said that "lack of title does not necessarily mean lack of right to possess."
"For one thing, those with lawful possession may claim good faith as builders of improvements. They can take steps to preserve or protect their possession. For another, they may look into other modes of applying for original registration of title, such as homestead or sales patent, subject to the conditions imposed by law," the SC said.
"More realistically, Congress may enact a law to entitle private cliamants to acquire title to their occupied lots or to exempt them from certain requirements under the present land laws," the SC said.
The decision noted that one such bill is already pending in the House of Representatives.
Boracay island in Malay, Aklan is famous for its white sand beaches. It is the country's premier beach destination.
It is home to over 12,000 inhabitants in three barangays, the SC said.
The late former President Marcos had earlier declared Boracay island as tourist zones and marine reserves, which prevented the landowners from getting land titles to their properties.
But the landowners said they have been in occupying their properties in Boracay "since time immemorial" and that they had paid realty taxes on them.
