SC upholds GMA proclamation on Boracay Island
The Supreme Court yesterday handed down twin rulings on the controversial land ownership on Boracay Island, affirming a presidential proclamation categorizing more than half of the island as alienable and disposable and denying that land occupants have acquired vested rights over their properties and therefore could have their lands titled.
In an en banc resolution penned by Associate Justice Ruben Reyes on two consolidated cases, the High Court affirmed Proclamation 1064 issued by President Macapagal-Arroyo on May 22, 2006.
The proclamation classified 628.96 hectares or 60.94 percent of the 1,032-hectare island as alienable and disposable on the premise that the whole of Boracay is government property. The proclamation also provides for a 15-meter buffer zone on each side of the center line of roads and trails, which are reserved for right of way and which shall form part of the area reserved for forest land protection purposes.
The Bureau of Lands of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) had said that based on the proclamation, land for commercial use will be sold through public bidding while those for residential use not exceeding 1,000 square meters will be sold directly to the occupant by the government.
The residential land will be sold at the assessed price at the minimum while land use for commercial and industrial purposes will be sold through public auction either through oral or sealed bidding.
Land owners led by Orlando Sacay, owner of the Waling-Waling resort, and Wilfredo Gelito of the Willy's Beach Club Hotel, petitioned the High Court on August 10, 2006 to nullify the proclamation claiming that it violates their "prior vested rights" because they would be in effect bidding for their own properties.
But the High Court said there was nothing unconstitutional about the proclamation.
"Contrary to private claimants' argument, there was nothing invalid or irregular, much less unconstitutional, about the classification of Boracay Island made by the President through Proclamation No. 1064. It was within her authority to make such classification, subject to existing vested rights," it said in its ruling.
In the same decision, the High Court reversed an earlier Court of Appeals ruling that upheld a decision of the Kalibo Regional Trial Court which recognized the right of land occupants to have their lots surveyed and titled subject to existing laws.
The decision said land occupants, even if they have occupied the lots for years and have infused investments, have not acquired vested rights over land on Boracay because it has not been categorized until 2006 when Proclamation 1064 was issued.
"The continued possession and considerable investment of private claimants do not automatically give them a vested right in Boracay. Nor do these give them a right to apply for a title to the land they are presently occupying," the High Court said.
It said that it was only through Proclamation No. 1064 which "positively declared part of Boracay as alienable and opened the same to private ownership."
The High Court recognized that millions of pesos have been invested for the development of Boracay Island and thousands of people have settled on the world-famous resort.
"While the Court commiserates with private claimants' plight, We are bound to apply the law strictly and judiciously. This is the law and it should prevail. Ito ang batas at ito ang dapat umiral."
But it said land occupants and property owners could not be removed from their properties.
"All is not lost, however, for private claimants. While they may not be eligible to apply for judicial confirmation of imperfect title..., this does not denote their automatic ouster from the residential, commercial, and other areas they possess now classified as agricultural. Neither will this mean the loss of their substantial investments on their occupied alienable lands. Lack of title does not necessarily mean lack of right to possess."
It said land occupants and property owners can still pursue the titling of their lands like homestead or sales patent, subject to the the law.
It also said that Congress can enact a law to entitle private claimants to acquire title for their occupied lots or to exempt them from certain requirements under the present land laws.