BUREAU OF FORESTRY vs. COURT OF APPEALS andFILOMENO GALLOG.R. No. L-37995 August 31, 1987FACTS:In 1961, Mercedes Diago applied for the registration of 4 parcelsof land situated in Buenavista, Iloilo containing an approximatearea of 30.5 hectares. She alleged she occupied said parcels ofland having bought them from the estate of the late Jose Ma.Nava who, in his lifetime, had bought the lands in turn fromCanuto Gustilo in 1934. The Director of Lands opposed the application on the groundthat neither the applicant nor her predecessors-in-interest havesufcient title over the lands applied for, which could beregistered under the Torrens systems, and that they have neverbeen in open, continuous and exclusive possession of the saidlands for at least 30 years. The Director of Forestry also opposed on the ground thatcertain portions of the lands, with an area of approximately19.4 hectares are mangrove swamps and are within aTimberland Block.In 1965, Filomeno Gallo purchased the subject parcels of landfrom Mercedes Diago, and moved to be substituted in place ofthe latter, attaching to his motion an Amended Application forRegistration of Title.Philippine Fisheries Commission also moved to substitutepetitioner Bureau of Forestry as oppositor, since supervisionand control of said portion have been transferred from theBureau of Forestry to the PFC.In April 1966, the trial court rendered its decision ordering theregistration of the 4 parcels of land in the name of FilomenoGallo. It ruled that although the controverted portion of 19.4hectares are mangrove and nipa swamps within a TimberlandBlock, petitioners failed to submit convincing proof that theselands are more valuable for forestry than for agriculturalpurposes, and the presumption is that these are agriculturallands.ISSUE:WON the classifcation of lands of public domain by theExecutive Branch of the Government into agricultural, forest ormineral can be changed or varied by the court. NOHELD:Admittedly, the controversial area is within a timberland blockclassifed and certifed as such by the Director of Forestryin 1956. The lands are needed for forest purposes and hencethey are portions of the public domain which cannot be thesubject of registration proceedings.Clearly therefore the land is public land and there is no need forthe Director of Forestry to submit convincing proofs that theland is more valuable for forest purposes than for agriculture.As provided for under Sec. 6 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, theclassifcation or reclassifcation of public lands into alienable ordisposable, mineral or forest lands is now a prerogative of theExecutive Department and not of the courts. With these rules,there should be no more room for doubt that it is not the courtwhich determines the classifcation of lands of the publicdomain but the Executive Branch, through the Ofce of thePresident.Furthermore, respondents cannot claim to have obtained theirtitle by prescription since the application fled by themnecessarily implied an admission that the portions applied forare part of the public domain and cannot be acquired byprescription, unless the law expressly permits it. It is a rule oflaw that possession of forest lands, however long, cannot ripeninto private ownership.