Regalian matters

WHAT IS THE CONCEPT OF JURE REGALIA?

(REGALIAN DOCTRINE)
> Generally, under this concept, private title to land must be traced to some grant, express or
implied, from the Spanish Crown or its successors, the American Colonial Government, and
thereafter, the Philippine Republic
> n a broad sense, the term refers to royal rights, or those rights to which the !ing has by virtue
of his prerogatives
> "he theory of #ure regalia was therefore nothing more than a natural fruit of con$uest
CONNECTED TO THIS IS THE STATES POWER OF DOMINUUM
> Capacity of the state to own or ac$uire property%foundation for the early Spanish decree
embracing the feudal theory of #ura regalia
> "his concept was &rst introduced through the 'aws of the ndies and the Royal Cedulas
> "he Philippines passed to Spain by virtue of discovery and con$uest( Conse$uently, all lands
became the exclusive patrimony and dominion of the Spanish Crown(
> "he 'aw of the ndies was followed by the 'ey )ipotecaria or the *ortgage 'aw of +,-.( "his law
provided for the systematic registration of titles and deeds as well as possessory claims
> "he *aura 'aw/ was partly an amendment and was the last Spanish land law promulgated in the
Philippines, which re$uired the ad#ustment or registration of all agricultural lands, otherwise the
lands shall revert to the State
TAKE NOTE THAT THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE IS ENSHRINED IN OUR
PRESENT AND PAST CONSTITUTIONS THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
PROVIDES UNDER NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY THE
FOLLOWING
> 0 Section 1( All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral
oils, all forces of potential energy, &sheries, forests or timber, wildlife, 2ora and fauna, and other
natural resources are owned by the State( 3ith the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural
resources shall not be alienated( "he exploration, development, and utili4ation of natural resources
shall be under the full control and supervision of the State( "he State may directly underta5e such
activities, or it may enter into co6production, #oint venture, or production6sharing agreements with
7ilipino citi4ens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned
by such citi4ens( Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding
twenty6&ve years, renewable for not more than twenty6&ve years, and under such terms and
conditions as may be provided by law( n cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply &sheries,
or industrial uses other than the development of water power, bene&cial use may be the measure
and limit of the grant(8
> "he abovementioned provision provides that except for agricultural lands for public domain
which alone may be alienated, forest or timber, and mineral lands, as well as all other natural
resources must remain with the State, the exploration, development and utili4ation of which shall
be sub#ect to its full
control and supervision albeit allowing it to enter into coproduction, #oint venture or production6
sharing agreements, or into agreements with foreign6owned corporations involving technical or
&nancial assistance for large6scale exploration, development, and utili4ation
THE 1987 PROVISION HAD ITS ROOTS IN THE 19!"
CONSTITUTION
3)C) PR9:;<S%
> Section +( All agricultural timber, and mineral lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal,
petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy and other natural resources of the
Philippines belong to the State, and their disposition, exploitation, development, or utili4ation shall
be limited to citi4ens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations at least sixty per centum
of the capital of which is owned by such citi4ens, sub#ect to any existing right, grant, lease, or
concession at the time of the inauguration of the Government established under this Constitution(
=atural resources, with the exception of public agricultural land, shall not be alienated, and no
license, concession, or lease for the exploitation, development, or utili4ation of any of the natural
resources shall be granted for a period exceeding twenty6&ve years, renewable for another twenty6
&ve years, except as to water rights for irrigation, water
supply, &sheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, in which cases
bene&cial use may be the measure and limit of the grant(
THE 197! CONSTITUTION REITERATED THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE
AS 79''93S%
> Section ,( All lands of public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other mineral oils,
all forces of potential energy, &sheries, wildlife, and other natural resources of the Philippines
belong to the State( 3ith the exception of agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential, or
resettlement lands of the public domain, natural resources shall not be alienated, and no license,
concession, or lease for the exploration, or utili4ation of any of the natural resources shall be
granted for a period exceeding twenty&ve years, except as to water rights for irrigation, water
supply, &sheries, or industrial uses other than development of water power, in which cases,
bene&cial use may by the measure and the limit of the grant(
THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE DOESN#T NEGATE NATIVE TITLE$ THIS IS
IN PURSUANCE TO WHAT HAS %EEN HELD IN CRU& V$ SECRETARY
OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
> Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of ndigenous Peoples Rights Act on the ground that
it amounts to an unlawful deprivation of the State>s ownership over lands of the public domain and
all other natural resources therein, by recogni4ing the right of ownership of CC or Ps to their
ancestral domains and ancestral lands on the basis of native title(
> As the votes were e$ually divided, the necessary ma#ority wasn>t obtained and petition was
dismissed and the law>s validity was upheld
> J'()*+, K-.'/-/0 Regalian theory doesn>t negate the native title to lands held in private
ownership since time immemorial, adverting to the landmar5 case of CAR=9 :( '9CA'
G9:<R=*<=", where the ?S SC through )olmes held/ 0xxx the land has been held by individuals
under a claim of private ownership, it will be presumed to have been held in the same way from
before the Spanish con$uest, and never to have been public land(8
> <xistence of native titie to land, or ownership of land by 7ilipinos by virtue of possession under a
claim of ownership since time immemorial and independent of any grant from the Spanish crown
as an exception to the theory of #ure regalia
> J'()*+, P'/1/ Carino case &rmly established a concept of private land title that existed
irrespective of any royal grant from the State and was based on the strong mandate extended to
the slands via the Philippine @ill of +-A1( "he PRA recogni4es the existence of CCsBPs as a
distinct sector in the society( t grants this people the ownership and possession of their ancestral
domains and ancestral lands and de&nes the extent of these lands and domains
> J'()*+, V*)'20 Carino cannot override the collective will of the people expressed in the
Constitution(
> J'()*+, P-/2-/*3-// all 7ilipinos, whether indigenous or not, are sub#ect to the Constitution,
and that no one is exempt from its allencompassing provisions
C4*)*5', 1/ )6, I7.8,7,/)-)*1/ 19 )6,
R,2-8*-/ D1+)4*/,
Regalian doctrine is anchored on the principle that State owns all lands and waters of the
public domain( "he doctrine is the foundation of the principle of land ownership that all lands
that have not been ac$uired by purchase or grant from the Government belong to the public
domain( Property of public dominion is that devoted to public use such as roads, canals,
rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, riverban5s, shores, roadsteads
and that of a similar character( "hose which belong to the State, not devoted to public use,
and are intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth, are
also classi&ed as property of public dominion( All other property of the State which is not of
public dominion is patrimonial( Also, property of public dominion, when no longer intended for
public use or public service, shall form part of the patrimonial property of the State(CiD
M-/1)1+ :( %-45',0
n the case of M-/1)1+ :( %-45',CiiD, the Court declared the land, which was a 7riar 'and,
as still part of the Government>s patrimonial property despite the claimant>s longtime
possession of the property( t cited the ruling in A81/(1 :($ C,3' C1'/)4; C8'3< I/+$
CiiiDwherein the Court held that/
=either may the rewards of prescription be successfully invo5ed by respondent, as it is an
iron6clad dictum that prescription can never lie against the Government( Since respondent
failed to present the paper trail of the property>s conversion to private property, the lengthy
possession and occupation of the disputed land by respondent cannot be counted in its favor,
as the sub#ect property being a friar land, remained part of the patrimonial property of the
Government( P1((,((*1/ 19 .-)4*71/*-8 .41.,4); 19 )6, G1:,4/7,/)< =6,)6,4
(.-//*/2 >,+->,( 14 +,/)'4*,(< +-/ /1) ipso facto 4*.,/ */)1 1=/,4(6*.$ *oreover, the
rule that statutes of limitation do not run against the State, unless therein expressly provided,
is founded on 0the great principle of public policy, applicable to all governments ali5e, which
forbids that the public interests should be pre#udiced by the negligence of the oEcers or
agents to whose care they are con&ded(8 F<mphasis suppliedG
=oteworthy is the ruling elucidated by this Court in D*4,+)14 19 F14,()4; :($ M'?1@CivD and
consistently adhered to in a long line of cases, the more recent of which is R,.'38*+ :($
C1'4) 19 A..,-8(CvD, that forest lands or forest reserves are incapable of private
appropriation and possession thereof, however long, cannot convert them into private
properties( "his ruling is premised on the Regalian doctrine enshrined not only in the +-.H
and +-I. Constitutions but also in the +-,I Constitution Article J of which provides that/
Sec( 1(All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal ( ( ( , forests or timber, ( ( ( and
other natural resources are owned by the State( 3ith the exception of agricultural lands, all
other natural resources shall not be alienated(8
Pursuant to this constitutional provision, the land must &rst be released from its classi&cation
as forest land and reclassi&ed as agricultural land in accordance with the certi&cation issued
by the ;irector of 7orestry as provided for by Section +,1I of the Revised Administrative
CodeCviD( "his is because the classi&cation of public lands is an exclusive prerogative of the
executive department of the government and not of the courts(CviiD *oreover, a positive act
of the government is needed to declassify a forest land into alienable or disposable land for
agricultural or other purposes(CviiiD
PD N1$ 7A" 14 T6, R,:*(,> F14,()4; C1>,
PD N1$ 7A" 14 T6, R,:*(,> F14,()4; C1>, issued by President *arcos categori4ed all
unclassi&ed lands of the public domain as public forest( Section . FaG of P; =o( IAH de&nes a
public forest as 0a mass of lands of the public domain which has not been the sub#ect of the
present system of classi&cation for the determination of which lands are needed for forest
purpose and which are not8( Applying P; =o( IAH, all unclassi&ed lands, including those in
@oracay sland, are ipso facto considered public forests(CixD P; IAH, therefore, suEciently is in
accord with the Regalian ;octrine well6ingrained in our Constitution( Considering that @oracay
island has not been classi&ed as alienable and disposable, claimant>s open, continuous,
exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation in @oracay since Kune +1, +-LH, or earlier
since time immemorial cannot ripen into ownership(
I/>*2,/1'( P,1.8,( R*26) A+) 14 RA 8!71
"he possession of ancestral domain and ancestral lands bestowed to the CCsBPs under
the I/>*2,/1'( P,1.8,( R*26) A+) 14 RA 8!71 is altogether a diMerent matter( 3hile it
could be argued under the Carino doctrine that as far bac5 as testimony or memory goes, the
land has been held by individuals under a claim of private ownership, it will be presumed to
have been held in the same way from before the Spanish con$uest, and never to have been
public land(
)owever, a proper reading of CariNo, would show that the doctrine enunciated therein applies
only to lands which have always been considered as private, and not to lands of the public
domain, whether alienable or otherwise( A distinction must be made between ownership of
land under native title and ownership by ac$uisitive prescription against the State( 9wnership
by virtue a of native title presupposes that the land has been held by its possessor and his
predecessors6in6interest in the concept of an owner since time immemorial( "he land is not
ac$uired from the State, that is, Spain or its successors6in6interest, the ?nited States and the
Philippine Government( "here has been no transfer of title from the State as the land has
been regarded as private in character as far bac5 as memory goes( n contrast, ownership of
land by ac$uisitive prescription against the State involves a conversion of the character of the
property from alienable public land to private land, which presupposes a transfer of title from
the State to a private person( Since native title assumes that the property covered by it is
private land and is deemed never to have been part of the public domain, the Solicitor
General>s thesis that native title under CariNo applies only to lands of the public domain is
erroneous( Conse$uently, the classi&cation of lands of the public domain into agricultural,
forest or timber, mineral lands, and national par5s under the Constitution is irrelevant to the
application of the CariNo doctrine because the Regalian doctrine which vests in the State
ownership of lands of the public domain does not cover ancestral lands and ancestral
domains(CxD
Senate @ill +I1, which gave rise to the I/>*2,/1'( P,1.8,( R*26) A+) (IPRAG was
principally sponsored by Senator Kuan *( 7lavier(CxiD At the Second Regular Session of the
"enth Congress, Senator 7lavier, in his sponsorship speech, gave a bac5ground on the
situation of indigenous peoples in the Philippines, to wit/
"he ndigenous Cultural Communities, including the @angsa *oro, have long suMered from
the dominance and neglect of government controlled by the ma#ority( *assive migration of
their Christian brothers to their homeland shrun5 their territory and many of the tribal
7ilipinos were pushed to the hinterlands( Resisting the intrusion, dispossessed of their
ancestral land and with the massive exploitation of their natural resources by the elite among
the migrant population, they became marginali4ed( And the government has been an
indispensable party to this insidious conspiracy against the ndigenous Cultural Communities
FCCsG( t organi4ed and supported the resettlement of people to their ancestral land, which
was massive during the Commonwealth and early years of the Philippine Republic( Pursuant
to the Regalian ;octrine &rst introduced to our system by Spain through the Royal ;ecree of
+. 7ebruary +,-L or the *aura 'aw, the government passed laws to legitimi4e the wholesale
landgrabbing and provide for easy titling or grant of lands to migrant homesteaders within the
traditional areas of the CCs(8 CxiiD
)istorically, the theory of the feudal system was that title to all lands was originally held by
the !ing, and while the use of lands was granted out to others who were permitted to hold
them under certain conditions, the !ing theoretically retained the title( @y &ction of law, the
!ing was regarded as the original proprietor of all lands, and the true and only source of title,
and from him all lands were held( "he theory of #ura regalia was therefore nothing more than
a natural fruit of con$uest(CxiiiD
A perusal of the PRA would show that there is nothing in the law that confers to the CCsBPs
ownership over the natural resources within their ancestral domain( "he right of CCsBPs in
their ancestral domains includes ownership, but this 0ownership8 is expressly de&ned and
limited in Section I FaG( "he CCsBPs rights over the natural resources are limited to managing
and conserving them for future generations( "hey are merely considered as stewards of the
natural resources(
3ith respect section HI of PRA, it provides that the CCsBPs shall have priority rights in the
harvesting, extraction, development or exploitation of any natural resources within the
ancestral domains( Clearly, priority rights cannot simply be ta5en or understood as e$uivalent
to ownership( Section HI is not a repudiation of the Regalian doctrine( Rather, it is an
aErmation of the said doctrine that all natural resources found within the ancestral domains
belong to the State( t incorporates by implication the Regalian doctrine, hence, re$uires that
the provision be read in the light of Section 1, Article J of the +-,I Constitution(CxivD
@ut more importantly, the ancestral land and the ancestral domains remains to be a private
land and outside the scope of public domain( n the landmar5 case of C-4*?1 :($ I/('8-4
G1:,4/7,/)CxvD, the ?nited States Supreme Court, made the following pronouncement/
C<Dvery presumption is and ought to be against the government in a case li5e the present( t
might, perhaps, be proper and suEcient to say that when, as far bac5 as testimony or
memory goes, the land has been held by individuals under a claim of private ownership, it will
be presumed to have been held in the same way from before the Spanish con$uest, and
never to have been public land( Certainly in a case li5e this, if there is doubt or ambiguity in
the Spanish law, we ought to give the applicant the bene&t of the doubt(8
"he court thus laid down the presumption of a certain title held F+G as far bac5 as testimony
or memory went, and F1G under a claim of private ownership( 'and held by this title is
presumed to 0never have been public land(8
"he Carino ruling came to be the exception to the theory of #ura regalia( 'egal history
supports the doctrine(
t is established doctrine that a statute should be construed whenever possible in harmony
with, rather than in violation of, the Constitution( CxviD "he presumption is that the legislature
intended to enact a valid, sensible and #ust law and one which operates no further than may
be necessary to eMectuate the speci&c purpose of the law(CxviiD After all, the PRA was
enacted by Congress not only to ful&ll the constitutional mandate of protecting the indigenous
cultural communities> right to their ancestral land but more importantly, to correct a grave
historical in#ustice to our indigenous people(CxviiiD
3hile the PRA underta5es to preserve the ancestral domains and ancestral lands, "he *ining
laws are being $uestioned for bringing about hundreds of people perishing in mine accidents,
man6made or otherwise, brought about by unregulated mining activities(
All lands of the public domain and all natural resources % waters, minerals, coal, petroleum,
and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, &sheries, forests or timber, wildlife, 2ora
and fauna, and other natural resources % are owned by the State( "he Constitution provides
that in the exploration, development and utili4ation of these natural resources, the State
exercises full control and supervision, and may underta5e the same in four FLG modes/
+("he State may directly underta5e such activitiesO or
1("he State may enter into co6production( #oint venture or production6sharing agreements
with 7ilipino citi4ens or $uali&ed corporationsO
.(Congress may, by law, allow small6scale utili4ation of natural resources by 7ilipino citi4ensO
L(7or the large6scale exploration, development and utili4ation of minerals, petroleum and
other mineral oils, the President may enter into agreements with foreign6owned corporations
involving technical or &nancial assistance(CxixD
P6*8*..*/, M*/*/2 A+) (RA 79BC)
3hile P6*8*..*/, M*/*/2 A+) (RA 79BC) governs the second and fourth mode< S7-88DS+-8,
M*/*/2 A+) (RA 7A7E) applies to the third mode(
Provisions of the RA I-L1 and RA IAIP clearly contravenes with the Section 1, Article J of
the +-,I Constitution which institutionali4ed the Regalian doctrine(
Pursuant thereto, the exploration, development and utili4ation of natural resources shall be
under the full control and supervision of the State(8 )owever, the proviso in Section . Fa$G of
RA I-L1 which de&nes 0$uali&ed person,8 to wit/
Provided, "hat a legally organi4ed foreign6owned corporation shall be deemed a $uali&ed
person for purposes of granting an exploration permit, &nancial or technical assistance
agreement or mineral processing permit(
n addition, Section HP of RA I-L1, authori4es the issuance of a mineral processing permit to a
foreign ownedBcontrolled corporation(
Clearly said provisions ma5es a foreign6ownedBcontrolled corporation $uali&ed to enter into
&nancial or technical assistance agreements, but also to obtain mineral processing permit,
which violates the regalian doctrine deeply rooted in our Constitution(
Another challenge to Section 1, Article J, of the +-,I Constitution pertains to the its
provision, to wit/
"he President may enter into agreements with foreign6owned corporations involving either
technical or &nancial assistance for large6scale exploration, development, and utili4ation of
minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions
provided by law, based on real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of
the country( n such agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of local
scienti&c and technical resources(8 F<mphasis suppliedG
Section . FrG of RA I-L1 provides a de&nition of a &nancial or technical assistance agreement
or an 7"AA( t means a contract involvng &nancial or technical assistance for large6scale
exploration, development, and utili4ation of mineral sources( 3hile the +-I. Constitution
referred to 0service contracts for &nancial, technical, management, or other forms of
assistance8 the +-,I Constitution provides for 0agreements ( ( ( involving either &nancial or
technical assistance(8 t bears noting that the phrases 0service contracts8 and 0management
or other forms of assistance8 in the earlier constitution have been omitted(CxxD
t would appear though that under Section .H FgG, FlG, FmG of RA I-L1 which state the rights
and obligations of a foreign6owned corporations pursuant to its 0mining operations, the
contractor is extended more than mere &nancial or technical assistance to State, as it
permits them to manage and operate very aspect of the mining activity(
@y allowing foreign contractors to manage or operate all the aspects of the mining operation,
the above6cited provisions of R(A( =o( I-L1 have in eMect conveyed bene&cial ownership over
the nation>s mineral resources to these contractors, leaving the State with nothing but bare
title thereto( *oreover, the same provisions, whether by design or inadvertence, permit a
circumvention of the constitutionally ordained PAQ6LAQ capitali4ation re$uirement for
corporations or associations engaged in the exploitation, development and utili4ation of
Philippine natural resources(CxxiD
"he Regalian ;octrine ought to be striclty adopted in our mining laws for while the latter
provide for the unconstitutional transfer of the bene&cial ownership of Philippine mineral
resources to foreign hands, the PRA bestows it to our very own CCsBPs as stewards for the
future generation to come and while illegal large6scale miners reaps the bene&t of soft
construction on the mining laws, the PRA ac5nowledges the presence of our indigenous
peoples who had longed for recognition and protection( t is a basic precept in statutory
construction that a statute should be interpreted in harmony with the Constitution and that
the spirit, rather than the letter of the law determines its constructionO for that reason, a
statute must be read according to its spirit and intent( "hat intention is usually found not in
Rthe letter that 5illeth but in the spirit that vivi&eth> ( ( (8 CxxiiD