ruz vs Secretary of DENR

Natural Resources and Environmental Law; Constitutional Law; IPRA; Regalian

Doctrine
GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000
FACTS:
Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for prohibition and mandamus as
citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act
No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its
implementing rules and regulations (IRR). The petitioners assail certain provisions of the
IPRA and its IRR on the ground that these 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.
ISSUE:
Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution?
HELD:
No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution. Examining the IPRA, there
is nothing in the law that grants to the ICCs/IPs ownership over the natural resources
within their ancestral domain. Ownership over the natural resources in the ancestral
domains remains with the State and the rights granted by the IPRA to the ICCs/IPs over the
natural resources in their ancestral domains merely gives them, as owners and occupants of
the land on which the resources are found, the right to the small scale utilization of these
resources, and at the same time, a priority in their large scale development and exploitation.
Additionally, ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not part of the lands of the public
domain. They are private lands and belong to the ICCs/IPs by native title, which is a concept
of private land title that existed irrespective of any royal grant from the State. However, the
right of ownership and possession by the ICCs/IPs of their ancestral domains is a limited
form of ownership and does not include the right to alienate the same.
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.

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.

Secretary of DENR vs Yap

Natural Resources and Environmental Laws: Regalian Doctrine
GR No. 167707; Oct 8, 2008
FACTS:
This petition is for a review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA)
affirming that of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Kalibo Aklan, which granted the petition
for declaratory relief filed by respondents-claimants Mayor Jose Yap et al, and ordered the
survey of Boracay for titling purposes.
On Nov. 10, 1978, President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1801 declaring Boracay Island
as a tourist zone and marine reserve. Claiming that Proc. No. 1801 precluded them from
filing an application for a judicial confirmation of imperfect title or survey of land for titling
purposes, respondents-claimants filed a petition for declaratory relief with the RTC in
Kalibo, Aklan.
The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) opposed the petition
countering that Boracay Island was an unclassified land of the public domain. It formed part
of the mass of lands classified as public forest, which was not available for disposition
pursuant to section 3(a) of PD No. 705 or the Revised Forestry Code.
ISSUE:
Whether unclassified lands of the public domain are automatically deemed agricultural
land, therefore making these lands alienable.
HELD:
No. To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, the
applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as a
presidential proclamation or an executive order, an administrative action, investigative
reports of the Bureau of Lands investigators, and a legislative act or statute.
A positive act declaring land as alienable and disposable is required. In keeping with the
presumption of state ownership, the Court has time and again emphasized that there must
be a positive act of the government, such as an official proclamation, declassifying
inalienable public land into disposable land for agricultural or other purposes.
The Regalian Doctrine dictates that all lands of the public domain belong to the State, that
the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land and charged with the
conservation of such patrimony.

All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to
belong to the State. Thus, all lands that have not been acquired from the government, either
by purchase or by grant, belong to the State as part of the inalienable public domain.

G.R. No. 167707

Boracay Mayor Jose Yap et al filed for declaratory relief to have a judicial confirmation of
imperfect title or survey of land for titling purposes for the land theyve been occupying in
Boracay. Yap et al alleged that Proclamation No. 1801 and PTA Circular No. 3-82 raised
doubts on their right to secure titles over their occupied lands. They declared that they
themselves, or through their predecessors-in-interest, had been in open, continuous,
exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation in Boracay since June 12, 1945, or
earlier since time immemorial. They declared their lands for tax purposes and paid realty
taxes on them.
The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), opposed the petition for
declaratory relief. The OSG countered that Boracay Island was an unclassified land of the
public domain. It formed part of the mass of lands classified as public forest, which was
not available for disposition pursuant to Section 3(a) of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 705 or
the Revised Forestry Code. Since Boracay Island had not been classified as alienable and
disposable, whatever possession they had cannot ripen into ownership. RTC Ruled in favor
of Yap et al. The OSG appealed.
G.R. No. 173775
During the pendency of G.R. No. 167707, in May 2006, then President Gloria MacapagalArroyo issued Proclamation No. 1064 classifying Boracay Island into four hundred (400)
hectares of reserved forest land (protection purposes) and six hundred twenty-eight and
96/100 (628.96) hectares of agricultural land (alienable and disposable). The Proclamation
likewise provided for a fifteen-meter buffer zone on each side of the centerline of roads and
trails, reserved for right-of-way and which shall form part of the area reserved for forest land
protection purposes.
Subsequently, Dr. Orlando Sacay, and other Boracay landowners in Boracay filed with the
Supreme Court (SC) an original petition for prohibition, mandamus, and nullification of
Proclamation No. 1064. They alleged that the Proclamation infringed on their prior vested
rights over portions of Boracay. They have been in continued possession of their respective
lots in Boracay since time immemorial. They have also invested billions of pesos in
developing their lands and building internationally renowned first class resorts on their lots.

The OSG again opposed Sacays petition. The OSG argued that Sacay et al do not have a
vested right over their occupied portions in the island. Boracay is an unclassified public
forest land pursuant to Section 3(a) of PD No. 705. Being public forest, the claimed portions
of the island are inalienable and cannot be the subject of judicial confirmation of imperfect
title. It is only the executive department, not the courts, which has authority to reclassify
lands of the public domain into alienable and disposable lands. There is a need for a
positive government act in order to release the lots for disposition.
ISSUES: Whether Proclamation No. 1801 and PTA Circular No. 3-82 pose any legal
obstacle for Yap et al and Sacay et al, and all those similarly situated, to acquire title to their
occupied lands in Boracay Island.
HELD: Yes. The SC ruled against Yap et al and Sacay et al. The Regalian Doctrine dictates
that all lands of the public domain belong to the State, that the State is the source of any
asserted right to ownership of land and charged with the conservation of such patrimony. All
lands that have not been acquired from the government, either by purchase or by grant,
belong to the State as part of the inalienable public domain.
A positive act declaring land as alienable and disposable is required. In keeping with
the presumption of State ownership, there must be a positive act of the government, such
as an official proclamation, declassifying inalienable public land into disposable land for
agricultural or other purposes. In the case at bar, no such proclamation, executive order,
administrative action, report, statute, or certification was presented. The records are bereft
of evidence showing that, prior to 2006, the portions of Boracay occupied by private
claimants were subject of a government proclamation that the land is alienable and
disposable. Absent such well-nigh incontrovertible evidence, the Court cannot accept the
submission that lands occupied by private claimants were already open to disposition
before 2006. Matters of land classification or reclassification cannot be assumed.
Also, private claimants also contend that their continued possession of portions of Boracay
Island for the requisite period of ten (10) years under Act No. 926 ipso facto converted the
island into private ownership. Private claimants continued possession under Act No.
926 does not create a presumption that the land is alienable. It is plain error for
petitioners to argue that under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and Public Land Act No.
926, mere possession by private individuals of lands creates the legal presumption
that the lands are alienable and disposable.
Private claimants are not entitled to apply for judicial confirmation of imperfect title
under CA No. 141. Neither do they have vested rights over the occupied lands under
the said law. There are two requisites for judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete
title under CA No. 141, namely:

(1) open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject
land by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest under a bona fide claim of ownership
since time immemorial or from June 12, 1945; and
(2) the classification of the land as alienable and disposable land of the public domain.
The tax declarations in the name of private claimants are insufficient to prove the first
element of possession. The SC noted that the earliest of the tax declarations in the name of
private claimants were issued in 1993. Being of recent dates, the tax declarations are not
sufficient to convince this Court that the period of possession and occupation commenced
on June 12, 1945.
Yap et al and Sacay et al insist that they have a vested right in Boracay, having been in
possession of the island for a long time. They have invested millions of pesos in developing
the island into a tourist spot. They say their continued possession and investments give
them a vested right which cannot be unilaterally rescinded by Proclamation No. 1064.
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 SC is constitutionally bound to
decide cases based on the evidence presented and the laws applicable. As the law and
jurisprudence stand, private claimants are ineligible to apply for a judicial confirmation of
title over their occupied portions in Boracay even with their continued possession and
considerable investment in the island.

Key Provisions[edit]
Right of Empowerment and Self Governance[edit]
SECTION 13. Self-Governance. The State recognizes the inherent right of ICCs/IPs to selfgovernance and self-determination and respects the integrity of their values, practices and
institutions. Consequently, the State shall guarantee the right of ICCs/IPs to freely pursue their
economic, social and cultural development.
SECTION 14. Support for Autonomous Regions. The State shall continue to strengthen and
support the autonomous regions created under the Constitution as they may require or need. The
State shall likewise encourage other ICCs/IPs not included or outside Muslim Mindanao and the
Cordilleras to use the form and content of their ways of life as may be compatible with the
fundamental rights defined in the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and other
internationally recognized human rights.
SECTION 15. Justice System, Conflict Resolution Institutions, and Peace Building Processes.
The ICCs/IPs shall have the right to use their own commonly accepted justice systems, conflict
resolution institutions, peace building processes or mechanisms and other customary laws and
practices within their respective communities and as may be compatible with the national legal
system and with internationally recognized human rights.
SECTION 16. Right to Participate in Decision-Making. ICCs/IPs have the right to participate fully,
if they so choose, at all levels of decision-making in matters which may affect their rights, lives and
destinies through procedures determined by them as well as to maintain and develop their own
indigenous political structures. Consequently, the State shall ensure that the ICCs/IPs shall be given
mandatory representation in policy-making bodies and other local legislative councils.
SECTION 17. Right to Determine and Decide Priorities for Development. The ICCs/IPs shall have
the right to determine and decide their own priorities for development affecting their lives, beliefs,

institutions, spiritual well-being, and the lands they own, occupy or use. They shall participate in the
formulation, implementation and evaluation of policies, plans and programs for national, regional and
local development which may directly affect them.
SECTION 18. Tribal Barangays. The ICCs/IPs living in contiguous areas or communities where
they form the predominant population but which are located in municipalities, provinces or cities
where they do not constitute the majority of the population, may form or constitute a separate
barangay in accordance with the Local Government Code on the creation of tribal barangays.
SECTION 19. Role of Peoples Organizations. The State shall recognize and respect the role of
independent ICCs/IPs organizations to enable the ICCs/IPs to pursue and protect their legitimate
and collective interests and aspirations through peaceful and lawful means.
SECTION 20. Means for Development/Empowerment of ICCs/IPs. The Government shall
establish the means for the full development/empowerment of the ICCs/IPs own institutions and
initiatives and, where necessary, provide the resources needed therefore. [6]

Rights to Ancestral Domain[edit]

Chapter III, section 7 of the Republic Act No. 8371 of 1997 covers the 8 Rights to Ancestral Domain.
This chapter focuses on the identification and protection of the entitlement of the Indigenous Cultural
Communities (ICC), and the Indigenous Peoples (IPs) as the proper owners of their ancestral land.
The following rights are listed below:
This was implemented in order to stop the historical injustices experienced by the IPs. Despite the
implementation of the law since the year 1997, the IPs of the Philippines still persistently experience
injustices. The IPs are struggling fighting for their rights because they feel like the government has
continued to neglect them.
The main criticism concerning R.A. 8371 is that it is ambiguous. One of the issues it encountered
was that it is inconsistent and conflicting with the Philippines constitution (2).
This has become the case because of the doctrine of jura regalia, which means that "all lands of the
public domain belong to the state" (2). The next problem encountered was that the ancestral domain
rights legal characterisation as "private but communal" differentiated from the Philippines civil law's
idea of co-ownership of real property. This meant that areas in ancestral domains is shared by the
members of the community, but that does not mean that they are considered as co-owners of the
said property according to the New Civil Code (2).
Section 57 of chapter VIII of the Republic Act No. 8371 of 1997 which states that:
Natural resources within Ancestral Domains - The ICCs/IPs shall have priority rights in the
harvesting, extraction, development or exploitation of any natural resources within the ancestral
domain. A non-member of ICCs/IPs concerned may be allowed to take part in the development and
utilization of the natural resources for a period of not exceeding twenty-five (25) years: provided, that
a formal and written agreement is entered into with the ICCs/IPs concerned or that the community,
pursuant to its own decision making process, has agreed to allow such operation: provided, finally,
that the NCIP may exercise visitorial powers and take appropriate action to safeguard the rights of
ICCs/IPs under the same contract (1).
is also viewed as problematic (2) because being given
the right to be prioritised in terms of development, exploitation, extraction, or harvesting of natural
resources belonging in ancestral domains does not necessarily mean that an IP member is given the
right of ownership of the said natural resources (3). Section 57 does not really reject the jura regalia,
also known as the Regalian Doctrine or the Doctrine of Discipline expressed in the 1935, 1973, and
1987 Philippine Constitutions (4). According to the constitutions mentioned, the Regalian Doctrine
expresses that "all lands of the public domain, as well as all natural resources enumerated therein,

whether private or public land, belong to the State." (4). Most argue that the IPRA is flawed because
it violates this (4). Instead of protecting the rights of the IPs, Section 57 strengthens argument that all
natural resources found in ancestral domains belong to the State (3).

Social Justice and Human Rights[edit]

This chapter in the IPRA was written to recognize the indigenous people right to the same privileges
and protections also afforded by the State to its citizens. The law reemphasizes that all ICC/IPs are
legally entitled to fundamental universal human rights and that the State should actively create an
inclusive environment with this in mind.
Among these rights include;
Equal Protection and Non-discrimination of ICCs/IPs[edit]
Patterned after international standards set by the Charter of
the United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the
equal protection clause in the Philippine 1987 Constitution, this section
places the State as duly responsible for the execution of the IPs human
rights. The State is then called to acknowledge the ICCs/IPs position as a
vulnerable group that have been historically excluded from socio-economic
opportunities and to guarantee that the IPs enjoy equal protection by the
law.
Rights During Armed Conflict[edit]
As signatory to the Geneva Conventions, the State is expected to respect and to ensure respect for
the Conventions in all circumstances including local and international armed conflict. The State
through the NCIP is empowered to ensure all civliians including IPs'/ICCs' safety in circumstances of
emergency and conflict.
This being said, areas under Ancestral Domains and members of indigenous tribes require special
regulation beyond that of the Convention as legally recognized IPs/ICCs are given the freedom to
govern their territories by their own laws. Through the IPRA, the State must not;
a) Recruit children of the ICCs/IPs into the armed forces under any circumstance;
b) Conscript or recruit ICC/IP individuals against their will to the armed forces, and in particular for
use against other indigenous peoples;
c) Relocate ICC/IP communities to special centers for military purposes;
d) Force ICC/IP communities, families or individuals to abandon their lands, territories, or means of
subsistence; and
e) Require indigenous individuals to work for military purposes under discriminatory conditions. [5]
These provisions protects IP autonomy as well as requires the State to work alongside tribes through
an integrated emergency program which includes relief and rehabilitation efforts for IP victims of
armed violence. Special emphasis is placed the impact of armed conflict of indigenous children'
mental well being and development in high risk conflict areas.
Freedom from Discrimination and Right to Equal Opportunity[edit]
Unlawful Acts Pertaining to Employment[edit]
Basic Services[edit]

The law guarantees indigenous peoples right to basic social services as provided by the State. As a
vulnerable group, special attention is given for the "immediate, effective and continuing improvement
of their economic and social conditions."[5]
Examples of services that fit this provision include social security through the Republic of the
Philippines Social Services System, housing, vocational training and employment support through
various efforts of the Department of Social Welfare and Development as well as complete health
coverage through the PhilHealth "No Balance Billing" from government hospitals. [7][8]
Women, Children and Youth[edit]
The law also emphasizes that these rights are also to be afforded to indigenous women and
children. The provisions should not result in "the diminution of rights and privileges already
recognized and afforded to these groups under existing laws of general application." [5] The
government through NCIP must provide support to organizations which are geared towards
empowering women and the youth to involve themselves in community/nation building.
In accordance to the customary laws of each tribe, the government must provide mechanisms that
facilitate deeper understanding of indigenous culture for women and youth while their human dignity.
The law ensures the full realization of women's and youth rights but requires all mechanisms and
programs to be culturally sensitive and relevant to the ICCs/IPs needs.
An example of the programs geared towards the execution of this particular provision in the IPRA is
the culturally sensitive day-care program for both IP children and their mothers which NCIP mentions
in its first administrative order.[9]
Cultural Integrity[edit]
Attempts to implement these rights regarding cultural integrity are most recently captured by the
celebration of National Indigenous People's Month on October to November 2014. This was said to
be the biggest gathering of Philippine indigenous peoples by far. Headed by the chairman of the
National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA), Felipe M. De Leon, Jr., showcased were the
traditional cuisines, rituals, musical performances and other elements of culture. This gave way for
indigenous peoples to interact and learn from one another's culture. It was held in three different
venues, from Oct. 22 to 23 at the Baguio Convention Center in Baguio City in Luzon in expected
attendees were from groups: Gaddang, Isinay, Tinggian, Itneg, Ibanag, Yogad, Itawit, Malaweg,
Kasiguran, Ivatan, Itbayat, Bugkalot, Isnag, Kalinga, Ifugao, Ibaloy, Kankanaey, Balangao, Bontok,
Applai, Ilocano, Bolinao, Pangasinan, Tagalog, Sambal, Pampangan, Ayta, Agta, Mangyan,
Palawani, Molbog, Jama Mapun, Tagbanua, Palawan, Agutaynen, Bicolano, Batak and Cuyunon;
from Nov. 6 to 7 in Zamboanga City in Mindanao aimed to highlight the groups: Yakan, Subanen,
Manobo, Higaonon, Bagobo, Mandaya, Mansaka, Blaan, Sangir, Ata Manobo, Tboli, Teduray,
Arumanen, Mamanwa, Maranao, Magindanao, Iranun and Tausug and from Nov. 10 to 11 in Bacolod
City, Negros Occidental in Visayas for the groups: Ati, Panay Bukidnon, Waray, Abaknon, Hiligaynon
and Cebuano. It was organized by the Subcommission of Cultural Communities and Traditional Arts,
a subcommission of the NCCA, along with the local governments, government agencies,
nongovernmental organizations and private companies with the theme of "Katutubong Filipino para
sa Kalikasan at Kapayapaan" ["Native Filipinos for Nature and Peace"