Land Title and Deeds: Chapter 1 — What Lands are Capable of Being Registered

Chapter I

What Lands are Capable of Being Registered

• All lands in the Philippines are presumed to be lands of the public domain, and therefore, owned by the State. This rule finds support in Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution: 
• Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least 60 per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of waterpower, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.
• Section 2's origin is historical which can thus can be traced from the Regalian Doctrine.

The Regalian Doctrine 

 The Spanish Regime and the Regalian Doctrine

• Introduced by Spain into these Islands, this feudal concept is based on the State's power of dominium, which is the capacity of the State to own or acquire property. 
• Under the Regalian Doctrine, all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. 
• The Spaniards first introduced the doctrine to the Philippines through the Laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas, specifically, Law 14, Title 12, Book 4 of the Novisima Recopilacion de Leyes de las Indias which laid the foundation that "all lands that were not acquired from the Government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to the public domain."
• Upon the Spanish conquest of the Philippines, ownership of all "lands, territories and possessions" in the Philippines passed to the Spanish Crown. 
• In its broad sense, the term "jura regalia" refers to royal rights, or those rights which the King has by virtue of his prerogatives. 
• In Spanish law, it refers to a right which the sovereign has over anything in which a subject has a right of property or propriedad. 
• These were rights enjoyed during feudal times by the king as the sovereign. 
• The theory of the feudal system was that title to all lands was originally held by the King, and while the use of lands was granted out to others who were permitted to hold them under certain conditions, the King theoretically retained the title. 
• By fiction of law, the King was regarded as the original proprietor of all lands, and the true and only source of title, and from him all lands were held. 
• The theory of Jura regalia was therefore nothing more than a natural fruit of conquest. 
• The Philippines having passed to Spain by virtue of discovery and conquest, earlier Spanish decrees declared that "all lands were held from the Crown." 
• The Regalian doctrine extends not only to land but also to "all natural wealth that may be found in the bowels of the earth." 
• Spain, in particular, recognized the unique value of natural resources, viewing them, especially minerals, as an abundant source of revenue to finance its wars against other nations. Mining laws during the Spanish regime reflected this perspecte. 
• The Laws of the Indies were followed by the Ley Hipotecatria or the Mortgage Law of 1893. 
• The Spanish Mortgage Law provided for the systematic registration of titles and deeds as well as possessor y claims. 
• The Royal Decree of 1894 or the "Maura Law" partly amended the Mortgage Law as well as the Law of the Indies. 
• The Maura Law was the last Spanish land law promulgated in the Philippines.
• It required the "adjustment" or registration of all agricultural lands, other wise the lands would revert to the state.

The American Occupation and the Concession Regime

• The Regalian Doctrine was thereafter supplemented by the Concession Regime introduced by the Americans after the Spanish occupancy of the Philippines concluded. 
•  By the Treaty of Paris of December 10, 1898, Spain ceded "the archipelago known as the Philippine Islands" to the United States. 
• The Philippines was hence governed by means of organic acts that were in the nature of charters serving as a Constitution of the occupied territory from 1900 to 1935. 
• Among the principal organic acts of the Philippines was the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, more commonly known as the Philippine Bill of 1902, through which the United States Congress assumed the administration of the Philippine Islands. 
• Section 20 of said Bill reserved the disposition of mineral lands of the public domain from sale. 
• Section 21 thereof allowed the free and open exploration, occupation and purchase of mineral deposits not only to citizens of the Philippine Islands but to those of the United States as well:
• Sec. 21. That all valuable mineral deposits in public lands in the Philippine Islands, both surveyed and unsurveyed, are hereby declared t o be free and open to exploration, occupation and purchase, and the land in which they are found, to occupation and purchase, by citizens of the United States or of said Islands: Provided, That when on any lands in said Islands entered and occupied as agricultural lands under the provisions of this Act, but not patented, mineral deposits have been found, the working of such mineral deposits is forbidden until the person, association, or corporation who or which has entered and is occupying such lands shall have paid to the Government of said Islands such additional sum or sums as will make the total amount paid for the mineral claim or claims in which said deposits are located equal to the amount charged by the Government for the same as mineral claims.
• Unlike Spain, the United States considered natural resources as a source of wealth for its nationals and saw fit to allow both Filipino and American citizens to explore and exploit minerals in public lands, and to grant patents to private mineral lands. 
• A person who acquired ownership over a parcel of private mineral land pursuant to the laws then prevailing could exclude other persons, even the State, from exploiting minerals within his property. 
• Thus, earlier jurisprudence held that:
• A valid and subsisting location of mineral land, made and kept up in accordance with the provisions of the statutes of the United States, has the effect of a grant by the United States of the present and exclusive possession of the lands located, and this exclusive right of possession and enjoyment continues during the entire life of the location. xxx The discovery of minerals in the ground by one who has a valid mineral location perfects his claim and his location not only against third persons, but also against the Government. xxx 
• The Regalian doctrine and the American system, therefore, differ in one essential respect. 
• Under the Regalian theory, mineral rights are not included in a grant of land by the state; 
• Under the American doctrine, mineral rights are included in a grant of land by the government. 
• Section 21 also made possible the concession (frequently styled "permit", license" or "lease") system. 
• This was the traditional regime imposed by the colonial administrators for the exploitation of natural resources in the extractive sector (petroleum, hard minerals, timber, etc.).  
• Under the concession system, the concessionaire makes a direct equity investment for the purpose of exploiting a particular natural resource within a given area. 
• Thus, the concession amounts to complete control by the concessionaire over the country's natural resource, for it is given exclusive and plenary rights to exploit a particular resource at the point of extraction. 
• In consideration for the right to exploit a natural resource, the concessionaire either pays rent or royalty, which is a fixed percentage of the gross proceeds. 
• Later statutory enactments by the legislative bodies set up in the Philippines adopted the contractual framework of the concession.
• For instance, Act No. 2932, approved on August 31, 1920, which provided for the exploration, location, and lease of lands containing petroleum and other mineral oils and gas in the Philippines, and Act No. 2719, approved on May 14, 1917, which provided for the leasing and development of coal lands in the Philippines, both utilized the concession system. 
• Through the introduction of both the Regalian Doctrine and the concession system in the Philippines, the basic rule on ownership of lands was created: that title to all land shall emanate from the State (previously, the King). 
• The concession system, though, modified this rule. 
• Whereas before, all products of the land — including minerals — belonged to the State; the concession system modified this rule by allowing:
1. Land to be exploited for the purpose solely of deriving minerals by both locals and foreigners; and
2. Resultantly, minerals derived from the land may be susceptible of ownership by both locals and foreigners.

Lands of the Public Domain 

• That property belongs to the public domain means that it is destined to public use or which belongs exclusively t o the State without being devoted to common use or which is destined to some public service or to the development of the national resources and of mines until transferred to private persons.
• In a sense, public domain means ownership by the public in general, in that not even the State or its subdivision may make lands redeemed from the sea the object of commerce.
• Lands of the public domain remain property of the State, inalienable by private persons.

How lands of the public domain opened to ownership 

• In order for lands of the public domain to be susceptible of private ownership, they must be declared as alienable and disposable. 
• Republic of the Philippines v. San Lorenzo Development Corporation, G.R. No. 220902, February 17, 2020:
• At any rate, as in any manner of acquisition for land registration, the applicant must primarily prove that the land sought to be registered is alienable and disposable land of the public domain. 
• This is because, by virtue of the Regalian Doctrine, lands which do not clearly appear to be within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. 
• To overcome such presumption, the applicant must prove by clear and incontrovertible evidence that the land has been classified as alienable and disposable land of the public domain. 
• Alienable and disposable lands of the public domain can be defined as those lands of the public domain which have been the subject of the present system of classification and declared as not needed for forest purposes. 

• The following is the process through which lands of the public domain may be declared susceptible of appropriation by private individuals — thus, declared alienable and disposable. 
1. As adapted from previous constitutions, Section 4, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution classified lands of the public domain into: 
1. Agricultural;
2. Forest or timber;
3. Mineral lands; 
4. National parks. 
1. Under Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, only agricultural lands of the public domain may be susceptible of ownership in favor of private individuals
2. Once a parcel of land is classified as agricultural, Section 3, Article XII further requires that agricultural lands be classified by law according to the use to which they may be devoted. 
• This classification was a reversion from the previous classification of the 1935 Constitution, with one additional classification: national parks. 
• Henceforth, this justified the ownership of lands of the public domain in favor of individuals.
3. Section 4, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution requires an enabling law for agricultural lands to be released from public domain and converted to alienable and disposable lands. 
• This enabling law comes in the form of the Public Land Act (C.A. No. 141). 
• Section 8 of the Public Land Act requires the following acts to be performed before conversion to alienable and disposable lands of the public domain: 
• Only those lands shall be declared open to disposition or concession which have been officially delimited and classified 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. 
• In order, the following are the requirements: 
1. Delimited, classified, and surveyed;
2. Declared alienable and disposable;
3. 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. 
4. The conversion is published in accordance with Section 7 of CA 141.

Statutory requirements before being opened to ownership

1. Delimited, classified and surveyed 

• The act of delimitation and delineation is the act of setting aside the limits of a parcel of land and classifying the same. 
• The act of survey on the other hand is the process by which a parcel of land is measured and its boundaries and contents ascertained. 
• Also, to survey the land is to ascertain corners, boundaries, and divisions, with distances and directions. 
• Concerning lands of the public domain, it is the Bureau of Lands who shall have the direct executive control of the survey, classification, sale, or any other form of concession or disposition and management, and his decisions as to questions of fact shall be conclusive when approved by the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources
• Once again, these acts are not required for the land to be considered alienable or disposable if the President, for reasons of public interest, declares the said lands of the public domain as open to disposition before the same have had their boundaries established or have been surveyed. (Sec. 8, C.A. 141) 
• On the inverse, the President may, for the same reasons above-mentioned, suspend their concession or disposition. 
• In such a case, they can only be disposed of again by legislative act or by an Executive Order.

2. Declared alienable and disposable 

• The act of declaration of lands of the public domain to be alienable and disposable is the most important part of the process; without which, the claim to land shall be empty and shall not prosper. 
• While it is an acknowledged policy of the State to promote the distribution of alienable public lands to spur economic growth and in line with the ideal of social justice, the law imposes stringent safeguards upon the grant of such resources lest they fall into the wrong hands to the prejudice of the national patrimony. 
• The burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of State ownership of 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 is alienable or disposable.

• Authority to declare land as alienable and disposable 
• It is only through positive acts that a parcel of land may be declared as alienable and disposable. 
• The primary authority to declare lands as alienable and disposable is lodged with the President of the Philippines.
• Section 6 of C.A. No. 141, gave the Executive Department, through the President, this prerogative to classify or reclassify public lands into alienable or disposable, mineral or forest. 
• Since 1919, courts were no longer free to determine the classification of lands from the facts of each case, except those that have already became private lands. 
• The President may declare a parcel of land as alienable and disposable via either:
1. Presidential Proclamation; or 
2. Executive Order. 
• However, the prerogative to declare lands as alienable and disposable does not lie with the President alone. Other authorities who may declare a parcel of land as alienable and disposable: 
1. Administrative action;
2. Investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; 
3. A legislative act or a statute; and
4. The applicant may also secure a certification from the government that the land claimed to have been possessed for the required number of years is alienable and disposable.

• Manner of making positive acts of declaration that a parcel of land is alienable and disposable — via Congressional Act 
• Republic Act No. 9323 is an example of legislation that declares parcels of land to be alienable and disposable: 
• AN ACT RECLASSIFYING A PARCEL OF TIMBERLAND LOCATED IN BARANGAY ATABAY, MUNICIPALITY OF HILONGOS, PROVINCE OF LEYTE, AS ALIENABLE OR DISPOSABLE LAND FOR RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND OTHER PRODUCTIVE PURPOSES
• Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippine Congress Assembled:
• Section 1. The parcel of timberland located in Barangay Atabay, Municipality of Hilongos, Province of Leyte, identified under Hilongos Cadastre, CAD. 566-, Case 1, CM 10 22’N 124 44’ E Sections 1 and 2 per Land Classification Map No. 2994, Block D, Timberland Leyte Project No. 18, certified on February 22, 1982 per LC Map No. 829 dated September 25, 1929 of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources is hereby declared as alienable or disposable land for residential, commercial, industrial or other productive purposes.
• Clear from the above law is the straight-forward manner by which a parcel of land may be declared; meaning, a declaration that a parcel of land is alienable or disposable land for residential, commercial, industrial, or other purposes would suffice. 

• Manner of making positive acts of declaration that a parcel of land is alienable and disposable— via the DENR 
• The Department of Environment and Natural Resources is the government agency that has the direct executive control of the classification of the lands of the public domain. 
• Republic vs. T.A.N. Properties, G.R. No. 154953, June 26, 2008:
• The case provided the documentary requirements before a parcel of land may be considered as having been declared as alienable and disposable — under the DENR's authority.

• Manner of making positive acts of declaration that a parcel of land is alienable and disposable — via the DENR; The effects of R.A. No. 11573
• When R.A. No. 11573 was enacted, it intended to simplify the process of application for confirmation of incomplete or imperfect title, dealing particularly with Section 14 (1) of P.D. No. 1529 in relation to Section 48 of C.A. No. 141.
• As it relates to the declaration of a parcel of land to be alienable and disposable, the said law provides: 
• Section 7. Proof that the Land is Alienable and Disposable. 
• For purposes of judicial confirmation of imperfect titles filed under Presidential Decree No. 1529, a duly signed certification by a duly designated DENR geodetic engineer that the land is part of alienable and disposable agricultural lands of the public domain is sufficient proof that the land is alienable. Said certification shall be imprinted in the approved survey plan submitted by the applicant in the land registration court. The imprinted certification in the plan shall contain a sworn statement by the geodetic engineer that the land is within the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain and shall state the applicable Forestry Administrative Order, DENR Administrative Order, Executive Order, Proclamations and the Land Classification Project Map Number covering the subject land.
• Should there be no available copy of the Forestry Administrative Order, Executive Order or Proclamation, it is sufficient that the Land Classification (LC) Map Number, Project Number, and date of release indicated in the land classification map be stated in the sworn statement declaring that said land classification map is existing in the inventory of LC Map records of the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA) and is being used by the DENR as land classification map.
1. Under the law, whenever an original registration is sought of a parcel of land, a duly signed certification by a duly designated DENR geodetic engineer that the land is part of alienable and disposable agricultural lands of the public domain is sufficient proof that the land is alienable.
• Said certification shall be imprinted in the approved survey plan submitted by the applicant in the land registration court.
2. The imprinted certification in the plan shall contain a sworn statement by the geodetic engineer that the land is within the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain and shall state the applicable Forestry Administrative Order, DENR Administrative Order, Executive Order, Proclamations and the Land Classification Project Map Number covering the subject land. 
3. Should this not be available, it is sufficient that the Land Classification (LC) Map Number, Project Number, and date of release indicated in the land classification map be stated in the sworn statement declaring that said land classification map is existing in the inventory of LC Map records of the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA) and is being used by the DENR as land classification map.

• Did Section 7 of R.A. No. 11573 do away with the requirements brought forth by the case of T.A.N. Properties? YES.
• Republic vs. Pasig Rizal Co., Inc., G.R. No. 213207, February 15, 2022:
• Hence, at present, the presentation of the approved survey plan bearing a certification signed by a duly designated DENR geodetic engineer stating that the land subject of the application for registration forms part of the alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain shall be sufficient proof of its classification as such, provided that the certification bears references to: 
  1. the relevant issuance (e.g., Forestry Administrative Order, DENR Administrative Order, Executive Order, or Proclamation); and
  2. the LC Map number covering the subject land.
  In the absence of a copy of the relevant issuance classifying the subject land as alienable and disposable, the certification of the DENR geodetic engineer must state:
  1. the LC Map number;
  2. the Project Number; and 
  3. the date of release indicated in the LC Map; and
  4. the fact that the LC Map forms part of the records of the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA) and is therefore being used by DENR as such.
  In addition, the DENR geodetic engineer must be presented as witness for proper authentication of the certification so presented.

• Manner of making positive acts of declaration that a parcel of land is alienable and disposable; Acts not sufficient to declare land as alienable and disposable 
• The requisite of a positive act underline the stringent requirements of the Public Land Act which must be complied with, before a parcel of land is considered as alienable and disposable. 
• Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources vs. Yap, G.R. No. 167707, October 8, 2008:
• After a relocation survey conducted in 1976, President Marcos issued Presidential Proclamation No. 1801 (PP 1801) and PTA Circular No. 3-82 declaring the parcels of land around Boracay as tourist zones and marine reserves under the management of the Philippine Tourism Authority.
• Yap et al., claimed that PP 1801 prohibited them from titling the lands in their name as they had been occupying the parcels of land in accordance with Section 48 (b) of C.A. No. 141. Furthermore, they claimed that they are not precluded from registering the land in their names as the issuances did not place the Boracay Islands beyond the commerce of men..
• The Supreme Court denied their registration and ruled that the ownership of the Boracay islands remained with the State:
• 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 official 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 "officially 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 certification from the government that the land claimed to have been possessed for the required number of years is alienable and disposable. 
• In the case at bar, no such proclamation, executive order, administrative action, report, statute, or certification was presented to the Court. The records are bereft of evidence showing that, prior to 2006, the portions of Boracay occupied by private claimants were subject of a government proclamation that the land is alienable and disposable. Absent such well-nigh incontrovertible evidence, the Court cannot accept the submission that lands occupied by private claimants were already open to disposition before 2006. Matters of land classification or reclassification cannot be assumed. They call for proof.
• XXX 
• Private claimants cannot rely on Proclamation No. 1801 as basis for Judicial confirmation of imperfect title. The proclamation did not convey Boracay into an agricultural land. However, private claimants argue that Proclamation No. 1801 issued by then President Marcos in 1978 entitles them to judicial confirmation of imperfect title. The Proclamation classified Boracay, among other islands, as a tourist zone. Private claimants assert that, as a tourist spot, the island is susceptible of private ownership.
• Proclamation No. 1801 or PTA Circular No. 3-82 did not convert the whole of Boracay into an agricultural land. There is nothing in the law or the Circular which made Boracay Island an agricultural land. The reference in Circular No. 3-82 to "private lands" and "areas declared as alienable and disposable" does not by itself classify the entire island as agricultural. Notably, Circular No. 3-82 makes reference not only to private lands and areas but also to public forested lands. Rule VIII, Section 3 provides: No trees in forested private lands may be cut without prior authority from the PTA. All forested areas in public lands are declared forest reserves.
• Clearly, the reference in the Circular to both private and public lands merely recognizes that the island can be classified by the Executive department pursuant to its powers under CA No. 141. In fact, Section 5 of the Circular recognizes the then Bureau of Forest Development's authority to declare areas in the island as alienable and disposable when it provides: "Subsistence farming, in areas declared as alienable and disposable by the Bureau of Forest Development." Therefore, Proclamation No. 1801 cannot be deemed the positive act needed to classify Boracay Island as alienable and disposable land.
• Clearly, the reference in the Circular to both private and public lands merely recognizes that the island can be classified by the Executive department pursuant to its powers under CA No. 141. In fact, Section 5 of the Orcular recognizes the then Bureau of Forest Development's authority to declare areas in the island as alienable and disposable when it provides: "Subsistence farming, in areas declared as alienable and disposable by the Bureau of Forest Development." Therefore, Proclamation No. 1801 cannot be deemed the positive act needed to classify Boracay Island as alienable and disposable land.
• However, on May 22, 2006, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo exercising the authority granted to her by the Constitution to classify lands of the public domain, issued Proclamation No. 1064 classifying Boracay Island into four hundred (400) hectares of reserved forest land for protection purposes and six hundred twenty-eight and 96/100 (628.96) hectares of alienable and disposable agricultural land. The proclamation likewise provided for a fifteen-meter buffer zone on each side of the centerline of roads and trails, reserved for right of way and which shall form part of the area reserved for forest and protection purposes. 
• From the provisions of Proclamation No. 1064, it is now crystal clear that part of Boracay is alienable and disposable land, ergo, susceptible of private ownership in accordance with the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 141 or the Public Land Act. 
• Nevertheless, the Supreme Court in deciding the Boracay Case did not allow the claimants to apply for judicial confirmation of imperfect title under Commonwealth Act No. 141 for failing to comply with the requisites for registration under the provisions of the law.

• Manner of making positive acts of declaration that a parcel of land is alienable and disposable; Acts not sufficient to declare land as alienable and disposable — Notation of geodetic engineer 
• Arbias vs. Republic, G.R. No. 173808, September 17, 2008:
• The Supreme Court once noted the absence of the positive act/declaration that is needed for classification.
• Whether the notation made by the geodetic engineer would suffice to declare the parcel of land as alienable and disposable. NO
• Held:
• Second, neither does the evidence on record establish to our satisfaction that the subject property has been classified as alienable and disposable. To prove this requirement, petitioner merely points to an annotation in the lower left portion of the blueprint of the subject property, which recites:
• ALL CORNERS ARE OLD POINTS.
• ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE PROJ. 44 BLK-1 PER LC MAP. 1020 APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY ON JULY 26, 1933. COORDINATES OF BLLM#1 N=1266998.39, E=516077.19 LAT 11o 27' 27.4" N, LONG 123o 08' 9.9" E.35
• Petitioner's reliance on the above inscription is misguided.
• An applicant cannot rely on the notation in the blueprint made by a surveyor-geodetic engineer indicating that the property involved is alienable and disposable land. 
• For the original registration of title, the applicant must overcome the presumption that the land sought to be registered forms part of the public domain. Unless public land is shown to have been reclassified or alienated to a private person by the State, it remains part of the inalienable public domain. Indeed, "occupation thereof in the concept of owner, no matter how long, cannot ripen into ownership and be registered as a title." To overcome such presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be shown by the applicant. Absent such evidence, the land sought to be registered remains inalienable.
• In the present case, petitioners cite a surveyor-geodetic engineer's notation x x x indicating that the survey was inside alienable and disposable land. Such notation does not constitute a positive government act validly changing the classification of the land in question. Verily, a mere surveyor has no authority to reclassify lands of the public domain. By relying solely on the said surveyor's assertion, petitioners have not sufficiently proven that the land in question has been declared alienable.

3. Not been reserved for any public or quasi-public uses 

• The Revised Administrative Code (E.O. No. 297) provides for the power to reserve lands of the public domain of the President:
• Section 14. Power to Reserve Lands of the Public and Private Domain of the Government 
1. The President shall have the power to reserve for settlement or public use, and for specific public purposes, any of the lands of the public domain, the use of which is not otherwise directed by law. The reserved land shall thereafter remain subject to the specific public purpose indicated until otherwise provided by law or proclamation; 
2. He shall also have the power to reserve from sale or other disposition and for specific public uses or purposes, any land belonging to the private domain of the Government, or any of the Friar Lands, t he use of which is not otherwise directed by law, and thereafter such land shall be used for the purposes specified by such proclamation until otherwise provided by law.
• Lest it be forgotten, though, that the Public Land Act also allows Congress to overturn the act of the President in reserving a parcel of land to the State: 
• Section 79. This Legislature shall have the power at any time to modify, alter, rescind, repeal, annul, and cancel, with or without conditions, limitations, exceptions, or reservations, all and any dispositions made by the executive branch of the Philippine Government by virtue of this chapter, and the exercise of this power shall be understood as reserved in all cases, as an inherent condition thereof. (Public Land Act)

Lands which cannot be declared as alienable and disposable

• Parcels of land which are not susceptible of declaration as alienable and disposable may be enumerated as follows: RAPSN
1. Those which have been reserved for public or quasi-public uses;
2. Those which have been appropriated by the government; 
3. Those which have become private property like the Friar lands; 
• The Revised Forestry Code also provides that no land of the public domain eighteen percent (18%) in slope or over shall be classified as alienable and disposable. (Sec. 15, P.O. No. 705)
4. Submerged lands, like the waters (sea or bay) above them, are part of the State's inalienable natural resources. 
• Submerged lands are property of public dominion absolutely inalienable and outside the commerce of man.
5. Lands classified as national parks under the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act.

• Friar Lands
• Pursuant to Act No. 1120, the Government entered into contracts with the:
• Philippine Sugar Estates Development Company, Limited
• La Sociedad Agricola de Ultramar
• British-Manila Estates Company, Limited
• Recoleto Order of the Philippine Islands
• for the purchase of about one hundred and sixty-four thousand one hundred and twenty-seven hectares of land (164,127 ha) located in the provinces of:
1. Laguna
2. Bulacan
3. Cavite
4. Bataan
5. Cebu
6. Rizal
7. Isabela
8. Mindoro
• for the aggregate sum of seven million two hundred and thirty-nine thousand seven hundred and eighty-four dollars and sixty cents, money of the United States ($7,239,784.64)
• But the ownership of these friar lands did not vest only with the government. After their purchase, the preferable right to purchase the same shall vest over the actual occupant of any portion of the Friar Lands at the time of the purchase, much like those of the patent system. 
• The reason for giving preferential right of ownership in favor of these individuals was explained in the case of Jocson vs, Soriano, 45 Phil. 375; 378-379:
• Acts 1120 and 926 were patterned after the laws granting homestead rights and special privileges under the laws of the United States and various states of the Union. The statutes of the United States as well as of the various states of the Union contain provisions for the granting and protection of homesteads. Their object is to provide a home for each citizen of the Government, where his family may shelter and live beyond the reach financial misfortune, and to inculcate in individuals those feelings of independence. Furthermore, the state itself is concerned that the citizens shall not be divested of a means of support, and reduced to pauperism.
• Thereafter, these lands shall be considered as patrimonial property of the State and thus, not susceptible of alienation in favor of private individuals. 

• National Parks under the NIPAS Act
• The National Integrated Protected Areas Systems (NIPAS) Act was enacted to establish a comprehensive system of integrated protected areas within the classification of national park as provided for in the Constitution. (Sec. 2, R.A. No. 7586) 
• The areas covered by the said Act are declared as:
• national park
• game refuge
• bird and wildlife sanctuary
• wilderness area
• strict nature reserve
• watershed
• mangrove reserve
• fish sanctuary
• natural and historical landmark
• protected and managed landscape/ seascape 
• identified virgin forest
• To this list may be added those recommended by the DENR to be declared as a protected area and which are  proclaimed by Congress via enacting legislation or even  t hose which are proclaimed by the President via an Executive Order. 
• When in the opinion of the DENR a certain protected area should be withdrawn or disestablished, or its boundaries modified as warranted by a study and sanctioned by the majority of the members of the respective boards for the protected area as herein established in Section 11, it shall, in turn, advice Congress. 
• Disestablishment of a protected area under the System or modification of its boundary shall take effect pursuant to an act of Congress. 
• Thereafter, said area shall revert to the category of public forests unless otherwise classified by Congress: Provided however, that after disestablishment by Congress, the Secretary may recommend the transfer of such disestablished area to other government agencies to serve other priority programs of national interest.

• Submerged Land 
• The term "submerged lands" is primarily used to describe lands lying below the high tide line or high water mark.
• The nature of submerged lands as inalienable was discussed in the case of Chavez vs. PEA, G. R. No. 133250, November 11, 2003: 
• First, as Justice Bellosillo himself states in his supplement to his dissent, the Ponce Cases admit that "submerged lands still belong to the National Government." The correct formulation, however, is that submerged lands are owned by the State and are inalienable. Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution provides:
• "All lands of t he public domain, waters, minerals, co al, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forests of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. x x x."
• Submerged lands, like the waters (sea or bay) above them, are part of the State's inalienable natural resources. Submerged lands are property of public dominion, absolutely inalienable and outside the commerce of man. This is also true with respect to foreshore lands. Any sale of submerged or foreshore lands is void being contrary to the Constitution. 
• The Public Land Act provides that submerged lands shall be disposed of to private parties by lease only and not other wise.The reason for this rule was explained in the case of Chavez vs. PEA Amari, G.R. No. 133250, November 11, 2003: 
• Submerged lands, like the waters (sea or bay) above them, are part of the State's inalienable natural resources. Submerged lands are property of public dominion, absolutely inalienable and outside the commerce of man. This is also true with respect to foreshore lands. Any sale of submerged or foreshore lands is void being contrary to the Constitution. 

Different kinds of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain

• After a parcel of land has been declared as alienable and disposable, it is susceptible to taking different forms (in order to be devoted to different purposes). 
• Several provisions of law may be used to demonstrate the varied forms that a parcel of land which has been declared alienable and disposable takes: ARCI-RFM
1. Agricultural land
• It refers to land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land whilst agricultural activity means the cultivation of the soil, planting of crops, growing of fruit trees, including the harvesting of such farm products, and other f am, activities and practices performed by a farmer in conjunction with such farming operations done by persons whether natural of juridical.
2. Residential land 
• It should not be considered in its actual meaning, but in its prospective and objective purposes as well. Considering the influx of population and the impact of commercial, industrial and social intercourse thereon. Just as a truly residential lot cannot be converted into agricultural simply by reserving therein a plot for the cultivation of agricultural crops, an orchard or agricultural land cannot be considered residential simply because a portion thereof has been crisscrossed with asphalt and cement roads, with buildings here and there. 
• The usual forms of residential lands come in the form of subdivision lots and condominium units. P.O. No. 957 and R.A. No. 4726 governs subdivisions and condominiums respectively and defines them as follows:
1.  Subdivision project shall mean a tract or a parcel of land registered under Act No. 496 which is partitioned primarily for residential purposes into individual lots with or without improvements thereon, and offered, to the public for sale, in cash, or in installment terms. It shall include all residential, commercial, industrial, and recreational areas, as well as open spaces and other community and public areas in the project.
2.  A condominium is an interest in real property consisting of a separate interest in a unit in a residential, industrial or commercial building and an undivided interest in common directly or indirectly, in the land on which it is located and in other common areas of the building. A condominium may include, in addition, a separate interest in other portions of such real property. 
3. Commercial lands 
• Those are lands devoted principally to commercial purposes, and generally for the object of profit. Through the enactment of the Special Economic Zone Act (RA No. 7916), commercial lands have been classified further into those lands which are converted into commercial lands and those lands which are considered as being located within a Special Economic Zone.
4. Industrial lands
1. Those are lands devoted principally to industry as a capital investment. 
5. Reclaimed lands are those lands that are reclaimed by the Government by dredging, filling or otherwise. 
6. Foreshore lands are lands which lies between the high and low water marks, and that is alternately wet and dr y according t o the flow of the tide
• Almagro vs. Kwan, G.R. Nos. 175806, October 20, 2010:
• The Supreme Court ruled that to qualify as foreshore land, it must be shown that the land lies between the high and low water marks and is alternately wet and dry according to the flow of the tide. The land's proximity to the waters alone does not automatically make it a foreshore land. 
7.  Marshy lands
• Those are meant a tract of soft wet land such as a tract of land often periodically inundated and treeless and usually characterized by grasses, cattails and the like.
• Again, these different forms of land are alienable (and disposable), after having been classified and declared as such through the Public Land Act.

Land Use Conversion and Land Use Reclassification

• In order to take the various forms that alienable and disposable lands may take, it must undergo a system of reclassification or conversion. 
• As discussed in the case of Farmer-Beneficiaries Belonging to the Samahang Magbubukid ng Bagumbong Jalajala, Rizal vs. Heirs of Maronilla, G.R. No. 229983, 19 July 2019:
• Preliminarily, it must be pointed out that the classification of land as agricultural constitutes a primary classification. Section 3, Article XII of the Constitution provides for the primary classification of lands of the public domain into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and national parks. Under the Public Land Act, the responsibility over primary classification of lands of the public domain is vested in the President who exercises such power upon the recommendation of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). By virtue of PD 705, otherwise known as the "Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines," the President delegated to the DENR Secretary, among others, the power to classify unclassified lands of the public domain that are needed for forest purposes as permanent forest to form part of the forest reserves.
• The same provision of the Constitution also provides that agricultural lands of the public domain may be further classified according to the uses to which they may be devoted. This further classification of agricultural lands is referred to as secondary classification.
• The authority to reclassify agricultural lands into residential, commercial or industrial is lodged, among others, in cities and municipalities (hereinafter, LGUs). Prior to the passage of the present Local Government Code of 1991, LGUs already have the power to reclassify agricultural into non-agricultural lands pursuant to Section 374 of RA 2264, otherwise known as the "Local Autonomy Act of 1959," which empowered municipal and/or city councils to adopt zoning and subdivision ordinances or regulations in consultation with the National Planning Commission. When city/municipal councils approve an ordinance delineating an area or district in their cities/municipalities as residential, commercial, or industrial zone pursuant to the power granted to them under the aforesaid provision, they are, at the same time, reclassifying any agricultural lands within the zone for non-agricultural use; hence, ensuring the implementation of and compliance with their zoning ordinances. Pursuant to Letter of Instructions No. 729 dated August 9, 1978, LGUs were further required to submit their existing land use plans, zoning ordinances, and enforcement systems and procedures to the Ministry of Human Settlements for review, evaluation and approval, which functions were eventually devolved upon the HSRC.
• From this ruling may be derived the two systems of reclassification that a parcel of land may undergo: 
1. primary; and 
2. secondary. 
• As passed upon by the Court in the case of Davao Steel Corporation vs. Cabatuando, 10 SCRA 704 (1964):
• "When the petitioner corporation purchased the land, the same was still agricultural; it did not become industrial just because the corporation intended to make it so." 
• Thus, after the primary reclassification discussed previously, there is a need for the parcel of land to undergo a secondary classification before it may be devoted to uses other than agricultural. 
•  Anent the matter of land conversion and reclassification, the case of CREBA vs. Secretary, G.R. No. 183409, June 18, 2010 outlines their distinction:
• This Court held in Alarcon v. Court of Appeals that reclassification of lands does not suffice. Conversion and reclassification differ from each other. 
• Conversion is the act of changing the current use of a piece of agricultural land into some other use as approved by the DAR 
• while reclassification is the act of specifying how agricultural lands shall be utilized for non-agricultural uses such as residential, industrial, and commercial, as embodied in the land use plan, subject to the requirements and procedures for land use conversion. 
• In view thereof, a mere reclassification of an agricultural land does not automatically allow a landowner to change its use. He has to undergo the process of conversion before he is permitted to use the agricultural land for other purposes.
• The distinctions between the two concepts are thus clear. The following authorities consist of the source of conversion and reclassification:
1. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law empowers the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to approve or disapprove land use conversion; 
2.  RA 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991 empowers cities and municipalities to reclassify agricultural lands to non agricultural uses and formulate their comprehensive land use plans;

• Land Use Conversion; The CARP LAW
• Section 65 of Republic Act No. 6657 provides for the rules on Land Use Conversion under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. Section 65 provides: 
• Sec. 65. Conversion of Lands. – After the lapse of five (5) years from its award, when the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes, or the locality has become urbanized and the land will have a greater economic value for residential, commercial or industrial purposes, the DAR, upon application of the beneficiary or the landowner, with due notice to the affected parties, and subject to existing laws, may authorize the reclassification or conversion of the land and its disposition: Provided, That the beneficiary shall have fully paid his obligation.
• In order to implement Section 65, the Department of Agriculture issued Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 1999 (A.O No. 01). 
• As provided by the CARP Law, all agricultural lands may be converted to residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and other non-agricultural purposes, except the following lands: NIIII-AH
1. Agricultural lands within the protected areas designated under the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS), including watershed and recharged areas of aquifers, as determined by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR);
2. All irrigated lands, as delineated by the Department of Agriculture (DA) and/ or the National Irrigation Administration (NIA), where water is available to support rice and other crop production, and all irrigated lands where water is not available for rice and other crop production but are within areas programmed for irrigation facility rehabilitation by the DA and/ or the NIA;
3. All irrigable lands already covered by irrigation projects with firm funding commitments, as delineated by DA and/ or NIA; and
4. All agricultural lands with irrigation facilities operated by private organizations;
5. Irrigable lands not covered by irrigation projects with firm funding commitment; 
6. Agro-industrial croplands, or lands presently planted to industrial crops that support the economic viability of existing agricultural infrastructure and agro-based enterprises;
7. Highlands or areas located in elevations of 500 meters or above and have the potential for growing semi-temperate and usually high-value crops; 
8. Lands issued with notice of land valuation and acquisition, or subject of a perfected agreement between the landowner and the beneficiaries under the voluntary land transfer/direct payment scheme under the CARP; 
9. Environmentally-critical areas as determined by the DENR in accordance with law. 

•  Land Use Conversion; The CARP LAW — The Applicant 
• The applicant may be: OBG
• the owner of the private agricultural land, 
• or the beneficiary of the agrarian reform program after the lapse of five years from the award, 
• and any government agencies, government-owned and controlled corporations, and local government units which own agricultural land as their patrimonial property. 

• Land Use Conversion; The CARP LAW — Procedure for application 
1. The applicant shall then file the documents required by the Administrative Order respectively for the consideration of the Department of Agrarian Reform.
2. After complying with the documentary requirements and the payment of filing fees, the Notice of Application for Land Use Conversion shall be posted at the DAR Municipal Office where the land is located and in two (2) conspicuous places in the municipality or in the barangay where the property is located, for a period of fifteen (15) days. 
3. Within fifteen (15) days from the date of posting of the Notice of Application, a person who will be displaced or directly affected by the proposed land use conversion may file a written protest against the application for conversion with the Regional/ Central Office. The protest shall be resolved by the approving authority simultaneously with the application. 
4. Thereafter, a field investigation and ocular inspection shall be conducted on the property on the eighth day from posting of the Notice above-provided. The investigation shall cover the veracity of the information, and other matters. 
5. The investigation report shall be submitted to either the Regional or Central Office. 
6. Thereafter, on the twentieth (20th) day from posting of notice and after completion of inspection, they shall deliberate on the application for land conversion. A recommendation shall thereafter be made. This recommendation shall be forwarded to the Regional Director, the Undersecretary, or the Secretary of Agrarian Reform. 
7. The Regional or Central Office shall thereafter resolve the application and furnish the same to the applicant and the oppositors if any within ten (10) days accordingly. 
8. The Regional Office, duly authorized Undersecretary, or the Secretary of Agrarian Reform may approve the application for land use conversion. 
9. If the application for land use conversion is approved, the same shall be furnished to the applicant, the protestant or oppositors if any, and the concerned DAR officials.
10. The following limitations shall be incumbent upon the land:
1. It shall be limited to the specific use of the land authorized in the conversion order;
2. It shall be subject to the schedule indicated in the detailed site development plan and work and financial plan, but in no case shall the period of development extend beyond five (5) years from issuance of t he conversion order except as authorized by the Secretary or the approving official on meritorious grounds;  
3. The conditions shall be binding upon successors-in-interest;
4. The applicant shall allow duly authorized representatives of DAR free and unhampered access to the property subject of the conversion order in order to monitor compliance with the terms and conditions t hereof; 
5. The use authorized in the order of conversion shall be annotated on the title of the subject property; and
6. It shall be without prejudice to ancestral domain claims of indigenous peoples. 
11. The Oppositors may file a motion for reconsideration with the official who rendered the decision within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the copy thereof. 
12. If the motion for reconsideration is denied, the aggrieved party may file an appeal before the Secretary of Agrarian Reform from the decision of the Undersecretary within fifteen (15) days from the denial of the motion for reconsideration. 
13. From the decision of the Secretary of Agrarian Relations, the aggrieved party may file an appeal before the Office of the President or the Court of Appeals within thirty (30) days from the denial of the motion for reconsideration.
14. The conversion order shall thereafter become final and executory fifteen (15) days after receipt of a copy of the order by the applicant and the oppositors.

• Land Use Reclassification; Under the Local Government Code
• Section 20 of R.A. No. 7160 provides for the mechanism by which a parcel of land may be reclassified from agricultural to other uses:
• Sec. 20. Reclassification of Lands. 
• (a) A city or municipality may, through an ordinance passed by the sanggunian after conducting public hearings for the purpose, authorize the reclassification of agricultural lands and provide for the manner of their utilization or disposition in the following cases: 
1. when the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes as determined by the Department of Agriculture or 
2. where the land shall have substantially greater economic value for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes, as determined by the sanggunian concerned: 
• Provided, That such reclassification shall be limited to the following percentage of the total agricultural land area at the time of the passage of the ordinance:
1. For highly urbanized and independent component cities, fifteen percent (15%);
2. For component cities and first to the third class municipalities, ten percent (10%); and
3. For fourth to sixth class municipalities, five percent (5%): Provided, further, That agricultural lands distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries pursuant to Republic Act Numbered Sixty-six hundred fifty-seven (R.A. No. 6657).  otherwise known as “The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law”, shall not be affected by the said reclassification and the conversion of such lands into other purposes shall be governed by Section 65 of said Act.
• (b) The President may, when public interest so requires and upon recommendation of the National Economic and Development Authority, authorize a city or municipality to reclassify lands in excess of the limits set in the next preceding paragraph.
• (c) The local government units shall, in conformity with existing laws, continue to prepare their respective comprehensive land use plans enacted through zoning ordinances which shall be the primary and dominant bases for the future use of land resources: Provided, That the requirements for food production, human settlements, and industrial expansion shall be taken into consideration in the preparation of such plans.
• (d) Where approval by a national agency is required for reclassification, such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Failure to act on a proper and complete application for reclassification within three (3) months from receipt of the same shall be deemed as approval thereof.
• (e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed as repealing, amending, or modifying in any manner the provisions of R.A. No. 6657.
• Thus Section 20 of the said law provides for the authority to reclassify agricultural land to other uses. This provision gave rise to the enactment of Memorandum Circular No. 54 on June 8, 1993 in order to implement the aforementioned provisions of the Local Government Code (citing the case of Laynesa et al vs. Uy et al., G.R. No. 149553, February 29, 2008):
• Pursuant to RA 7160, then President Fidel Ramos issued Memorandum Circular No. (MC) 54 on June 8, 1993, providing the guidelines in the implementation of the above Sec. 20 of the Local Government Code, as follows:
• SECTION 1. Scope and Limitations.
• (a) Cities and municipalities with comprehensive land use plans reviewed and approved in accordance with EO 72 (1993), may authorize the reclassification of agricultural lands into non-agricultural uses and provide for the manner of their utilization or disposition, subject to the limitations and other conditions prescribed in this Order.
• (b) Agricultural lands may be reclassified in the following cases:
1. when the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes as determined by the Department of Agriculture (DA), in accordance with the standards and guidelines prescribed for the purpose; or 
2. where the land shall have substantially greater economic value for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes as determined by the sanggunian concerned, the city/municipality concerned should notify the DA, HLRB, DTI, DOT and other concerned agencies on the proposed reclassification of agricultural lands furnishing them copies of the report of the local development council including the draft ordinance on the matter for their comments, proposals and recommendations within seven (7) days upon receipt.
• (c) However, such reclassification shall be limited to a maximum of the percentage of the total agricultural land of a city or municipality at the time of the passage of the ordinance as follows:
1. For highly urbanized and independent component cities, fifteen percent (15%);
2. For component cities and first to third class municipalities, ten percent (10%); and
3.  For fourth to sixth class municipalities, five percent (5%).
4. In addition, the following types of agricultural lands shall not be covered by the said reclassification:
1. Agricultural lands distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries subject to Section 65 of RA 6557;
2. Agricultural lands already issued a notice of coverage or voluntarily offered for coverage under CARP.
3. Agricultural lands identified under AO 20, s. of 1992, as non-negotiable for conversion as follows:
1. All irrigated lands where water is available to support rice and other crop production;
2.  All irrigated lands where water is not available for rice and other crop production but within areas programmed for irrigation facility rehabilitation by DA and National Irrigation Administration (NIA); and
3. All irrigable lands already covered by irrigation projects with form funding commitments at the time of the application for land conversion or reclassification.
• (e) The President may, when public interest so requires and upon recommendation of the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA), authorize a city or municipality to reclassify lands in excess of the limits set in paragraph (d) hereof. For this purpose, NEDA is hereby directed to issue the implementing guidelines governing the authority of cities and municipalities to reclassify lands in excess of the limits prescribed herein.
• SECTION 2. Requirements and Procedures for Reclassification.
• (a) The city or municipal development council (CDC/MDC) shall recommend to the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan, as the case may be, the reclassification of agricultural lands within its jurisdiction based on the requirements of local development.
• (b) Prior to the enactment of an ordinance reclassifying agricultural lands as provided under Sec. 1 hereof, the sanggunian concerned must first secure the following certificates [from] the concerned national government agencies (NGAs):
1. A certification from DA indicating -
1. the total area of existing agricultural lands in the LGU concerned;
2. that which lands are not classified as non-negotiable for conversion or reclassification under AO 20 (1992); and
3. that the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes in the case of Sec. 1 (b-1).
2. A certification from DAR indicating that such lands are not distributed or not covered by a notice of coverage or not voluntarily offered for coverage under CARP.
• (c) The HLRB shall serve as the coordinating agency for the issuance of the certificates as required under the preceding paragraph. All applications for reclassification shall, therefore, be submitted by the concerned LGUs to the HLRB, upon receipt of such application, the HLRB shall conduct initial review to determine if:
1. the city or municipality concerned has an existing comprehensive land use plan reviewed and approved in accordance with EO 72 (1993); and
2. the proposed reclassification complies with the limitations prescribed in SECTION 1 (d) hereof.
• Upon determination that the above conditions have been satisfied, the HLRB shall then consult with the concerned agencies on the required certifications. The HLRB shall inform the concerned agencies, city or municipality of the result of their review and consultation. If the land being reclassified is in excess of the limit, the application shall be submitted to NEDA.
• Failure of the HLRB and the NGAs to act on a proper and complete application within three months from receipt of the same shall be deemed as approved thereof.
• (d) Reclassification of agricultural lands may be authorized through an ordinance enacted by the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan, as the case may be, after conducting public hearings for the purpose. Such ordinance shall be enacted and approved in accordance with Articles 107 and 108 of the IRR of the LGC.
• (e) Provisions of Sec. 1 (b-2) hereof to the contrary notwithstanding, the sanggunian concerned shall seek the advice of DA prior to the enactment of an ordinance reclassifying agricultural lands. If the DA has failed to act on such request within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof, the same shall be deemed to have been complied with.
• Should the land subject to reclassification is found to be still economically feasible for agriculture, the DA shall recommend to the LGU concerned alternative areas for development purposes.
• (f) Upon issuance of the certifications enumerated in Section 2 (b) hereof, the sanggunian concerned may now enact an ordinance authorizing the reclassification of agricultural lands and providing for the manner of their utilization or disposition. Such ordinance shall likewise update the comprehensive land use plans of the LGU concerned.
• R.A. 7160 gives local government units the authority to perform the secondary system of reclassification of a parcel of land to different uses other than agricultural.  

•