04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly held that absent any proof to the contrary, the presumption that Calauit is of public domain and thus belongs to the State stands. The Court of Appeals explained its pronouncement in this wise: Pursuant to [Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution], all lands of the public domain belong to the State, and that the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership in land and charged with the conservation of such patrimony. Corollarily, all lands not otherwise appearing to be within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Ergo, a positive act of the government is needed to declassify a forest land into alienable or disposable land for agricultural or other purposes. x x x. Therefore, to acquire ownership of public land, the same must first be released from its original classification and reclassified as alienable or disposable land. In the absence of such classification, the land remains unclassified public land until released therefrom and rendered open to disposition. Thus, the burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of state ownership of land lies upon the claimant. x x x. xxxx x x x [T]he law itself stated that only alienable and disposable lands, particularly agricultural lands, can be acquired through possession and occupation for at least 30 years. Since the subject property is still unclassified when [the petitioners] and their ancestors occupied the same, whatever possession they or their predecessors may have had and however long, cannot ripen into private ownership. Moreover, the fact that the disputed property may have been declared for taxation purposes in the names of [petitioners] or their predecessors-in-interest does not necessarily prove ownership. This is due to the fact that tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership or of the right to possess land when not supported by evidence or other persuasive proof to substantiate their claim. They are merely indicia of a claim of ownership. Considering that the [petitioners] failed to present convincing evidence and persuasive proof to substantiate their claim, the presumption of State ownership stands. It is also well to note that the bases of [respondent]'s superior right of possession and ownership was sufficiently supported both by law andjurisprudence.[33] (Citations omitted.) The petitioners moved for the reconsideration[34] of the aforequoted Decision, which was subsequently denied in a Resolution[35] dated November 18, 2002. Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari premised on the following assignments of error: Issues I. THE COURT A QUO'S RULING REJECTING PETITIONERS' CLAIMS OF OWNERSHIP OF THE LANDHOLDINGS IN DISPUTE, ABSENT "POSITIVE" PROOF OF ALIENABILITY THEREOF, IS CONTRARY NOT ONLY TO THE APPLICABLE LAW AND THE CONTROLLING DECISIONS OF THIS elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61037 7/19