Cruz vs DENR, G.R. No.

135385, December 6, 2000

Isagani Cruz v. Dept. of Energy and Natural Resources,
G.R. No. 135385, December 6, 2000
FACTS: Cruz, a noted constitutionalist, assailed the validity of
the RA 8371 or the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act on the
ground that the law amount to an unlawful deprivation of the
States ownership over lands of the public domain as well as
minerals and other natural resources therein, in violation of the
regalian doctrine embodied in Section 2, Article XII of the
Constitution. The IPRA law basically enumerates the rights of
the indigenous peoples over ancestral domains which may
include natural resources. Cruz et al content that, by providing
for an all-encompassing definition of ancestral domains and
ancestral lands which might even include private lands found
within said areas, Sections 3(a) and 3(b) of said law violate the
rights of private landowners.

Imperium v. Dominium

legality of the grant is a question between the grantee

and the government

FACTS:

Aniano David acquired lawful title pursuant to his

miscellaneous sales application in accordance with which
an order of award and for issuance of a sales
patent (*similar to public auction) was made by the
Director of Lands on June 18, 1958, covering Lot 2892.

On the basis of the order of award of the Director of

Lands the Undersecretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources issued on August 26, 1959, Miscellaneous Sales
Patent No. V-1209 pursuant to which OCT No. 510 was
issued by the Register of Deeds of Naga City on October
21, 1959.

ISSUE: Whether or not the IPRA law is unconstitutional.

HELD: The SC deliberated upon the matter. After deliberation

they voted and reached a 7-7 vote. They deliberated again and
the same result transpired. Since there was no majority vote,
Cruzs petition was dismissed and the IPRA law was sustained.
Hence, ancestral domains may include natural resources
somehow against the regalian doctrine

Land in question is not a private property as the

Director of Lands and the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources have always sustained the public
character for having been formed by reclamation (as
opposed to peittioners contention that it is accretion)

The only remedy: action for reconveyance on the

ground of fraud - But there was no fraud in this case

ISSUES:

CARIO vs THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT, G.R. No. L-2746

December 6, 1906
MATEO CARIO vs THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT

1.

W/N Lee Hong Kok can question the grant. - NO

2.

W/N David has original acquisition of title. - YES

G.R. No. L-2746 December 6, 1906

FACTS: On June 23, 1903, Mateo Cario went to the Court of
Land Registration to petition his inscription as the owner of a
146 hectare land hes been possessing in the then municipality
of Baguio. Mateo only presented possessory information and
no other documentation. The State opposed the petition
averring that the land is part of the US military reservation.
The CLR ruled in favor of Mateo. The State appealed. Mateo
lost. Mateo averred that a grant should be given to him by
reason of immemorial use and occupation as in the previous
case Cansino vs Valdez & Tiglao vs Government.

ISSUE: Whether or not Mateo is the rightful owner of the land

by virtue of his possession of it for some time.

HELD: No. The statute of limitations did not run against the
government. The government is still the absolute owner of the
land (regalian doctrine). Further, Mateos possession of the
land has not been of such a character as to require the
presumption of a grant. No one has lived upon it for many
years. It was never used for anything but pasturage of animals,
except insignificant portions thereof, and since the insurrection
against Spain it has apparently not been used by the petitioner
for any purpose.
While the State has always recognized the right of the
occupant to a deed if he proves a possession for a sufficient
length of time, yet it has always insisted that he must make
that proof before the proper administrative officers, and obtain
from them his deed, and until he did the State remained the
absolute owner.
Lee Hong Kok V. David (1972

Sec. 2 Art. XII 1987 Constitution

HELD: Court of Appeals Affirmed. (no legal justification for

nullifying the right of David to the disputed lot arising from the
grant made in his favor by respondent officials)

Only the Government, represented by the Director of

Lands, or the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, can bring an action to cancel a void certificate
of title issued pursuant to a void patent. The legality of the
grant is a question between the grantee and the
government. Private parties like the plaintiffs cannot
claim that the patent and title issued for the land involved
are void since they are not the registered owners thereof
nor had they been declared as owners in the cadastral
proceedings of Naga Cadastre after claiming it as their
private property.

Well-settled Rule : no public land can be acquired by

private persons without any grant, express or implied,
from the government

Cabacug v. Lao: holder of a land acquired under a

free patent is more favorably situated than that of an
owner ofregistered property. Not only does a free patent
have a force and effect of a Torrens Title, but in addition
the person to whom it is granted has likewise in his favor
the right to repurchase within a period of 5 years.
Imperium v. Dominium

1.

Imperium - government authority possessed by the

state which is appropriately embraced in the concept of
sovereignty

2.

Dominium - capacity to own or acquire property. The

use of this term is appropriate with reference to lands
held by the state in its proprietary character. In such
capacity, it may provide for the exploitation and use of
lands and other natural resources, including
their disposition, except as limited by the Constitution.