Monday, November 03, 2008 Landowners seek more private domain in Boracay
BORACAY landowners have asked the Supreme Court (SC) to reconsider its decision declaring about 400 hectares of the island destination in Kalibo, Aklan as public domain, thus cannot be subject to private ownership.
Two separate motions for reconsiderations were filed by the group of Mila Sumndad, Aniceto Yap, and Libertad Talapian while the other one was filed by the group of Dr. Orlando Sacay and Wilfredo Gelito.
They seek for a review of the SC's October 8 decision, saying it will have a "far-reaching effect" in the country's tourism industry, and in the country's economic development.
The group of Sumndad further asked the high court to set the case for oral arguments, with the participation constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Carpio-Villaraza Law Offices as amicus curiae to hear their legal opinion on the matter.
The consolidated petitions questioned the Court of Appeals (CA)' decision that affirmed the Kalibo Regional Trial Court (RTC)'s granting of the petition for declaratory relief filed by respondents-claimants Mayor Jose Yap et al and ordering the survey of Boracay for titling purposes as well as the appeal to nullify President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's declaration classifying Boracay as a forest and agricultural reserve under Proclamation 1064.
In their separate motions, the petitioners similarly argued that Proclamation 1064 is unconstitutional as it arrogates upon herself the power to classify lands, which properly belongs to Congress and violates property rights without due process.
The private claimants said Arroyo's proclamation violates their vested rights over their respective lands in Boracay, which they have been occupying for more than 30 years.
"The pronouncement by this Court in this case has undoubtedly far-reaching and all encompassing significance, a formidable and intimidating weapon for an unfeeling government, a source of validated arbitrary exercise of confiscatory powers, a pre-ordained and mandated subservience of individual property rights to that fiction of 'forest without trees,'" the petitioners argued.
They pointed out that Section 4 of Article XIII of the Constitution states that: "The Congress shall, as soon as possible, determine by law the specific limits of forest lands and national parks, marking clearly their boundaries on the grounds..."
They cited that Boracay island is susceptible of private ownership by acquisitive prescription under applicable laws classifying it as agricultural and as a tourism zone under Proclamation 1801 and related issuances, which is merely aimed at administering the island for tourism and ecological purposes, and not to address the area's alienability.
"If the intention of Proclamation 1801 is to classify the island as alienable and disposable or forest, or both, President (Ferdinand) Marcos would have identified the specific limits of each, as Arroyo did in Proclamation 1064," they added.
Boracay residents and landowners further questioned the SC's claim that it was Proclamation 1064 that positively declared part of Boracay as alienable and opened the same to private ownership.
They noted that Boracay started its development as a prime tourist destination shortly after the issuance of Proclamation 1801, when the Philippine Tourism Agency (PTA), recognized private ownership of lands, and declared only the forested areas in Boracay as forest reserve.
"Again, if Boracay Island is 'forest land,' and therefore, inalienable, why the need to even encourage investors to pour in money into the island? Such a game to play is absolutely disgraceful if not scandalous -- and in no good governance at all," they said, noting that other areas covered by Proclamation 1801 such as Puerto Galera, Puerto Princesa, and the entire Camiguin Island, among others, have already been titled to recognized owners by possession and sale transactions.
In its October 8 decision penned by Associate Justice Ruben Reyes, the SC ruled that Boracay, a favorite tourist destination, remains to be owned by the government as it is a forest area despite the proliferation of privately owned resorts.
The high court said private claimants are ineligible to apply for a judicial confirmation of title over their occupied portions in Boracay even with their continued possession and considerable investment in the land.
The SC said that except for lands already covered by titles, Boracay was an unclassified land of the public domain prior to Proclamation 1064 of Arroyo. Such unclassified lands are considered public forests under PD 705, the SC added.
The private claimants, according to SC, cannot also rely on Proclamation 1801 as basis for judicial confirmation of imperfect title as it did not convert Boracay into an agricultural land.
However, the tribunal stated that its decision should not result to the automatic ouster of the private claimants from the areas they are currently occupying as "lack of title does not necessarily mean lack of right to possess." (ECV/Sunnex)
