SAAD AGRO. INDUSTRIES, INC. V.

REPUBLIC

G.R. NO. 152570 September 27, 2006

FACTS:

Socorro Orcullo filed her application for Free Patent a parcel of land located in Barangay
Abugon, Sibonga, Cebu. Thereafter, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources issued
Free Patent, while the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Cebu issued Original Certificate of
Title (OCT) over the said lot. Subsequently, the subject lot was sold to SAAD Agro- Industries,
Inc. (petitioner) by one of Orcullo's heirs. Sometime in 1995, the Republic of the Philippines,
through the Solicitor General, filed a complaint for annulment of title and reversion of the to
the mass of the public domain, on the ground that the issuance of the said free patent and title
was irregular and erroneous, following the discovery that the lot is allegedly part of the
timberland and forest reserve of Sibonga, Cebu.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the land belonged to the government under the Regalian doctrine?

HELD:

Yes. The Regalian doctrine is well-enshrined not only in the present Constitution, but also in the
1935 and 1973 Constitutions. The Court has always recognized and upheld the Regalian
doctrine as the basic foundation of the State's property regime. Nevertheless, in applying this
doctrine, we must not lose sight of the fact that in every claim or right by the Government
against one of its citizens, the paramount considerations of fairness and due process must be
observed. Respondent in this case failed to show that the subject lot is part of timberland or
forest reserve it adverted to. In the face of the uncontroverted status of Free Patent No.
473408 and OCT No. 0-6667 as valid and regular issuances, respondent's insistence on the
classification of the lot as part of the forest reserve must be rejected.
 CRUZ V. DENR
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:

Whether or not the ancestral lands and ancestral domains are part of the public domain?

HELD:

No. 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. 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.
 CARINO V. INSULAR GOVT
212 US 449 (1909)

FACTS:

An Igorot applied for the registration of a certain land. He and his ancestors had held the land
as owners for more than 50 years, which he inherited under Igorot customs. There was no
document of title issued for the land when he applied for registration. The government
contends that the land in question belonged to the state. Under the Spanish Law, all lands
belonged to the Spanish Crown except those with permit private titles. Moreover, there is no
prescription against the Crown.

ISSUE:

WON the ancestral domain belonged to the Spanish Crown under the Regalian Doctrine?

HELD:

No. Law and justice require that the applicant should be granted title to his land. The United
States Supreme Court, through Justice Holmes declared: It might perhaps, be proper and
sufficient to say that when, as far 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 conquest, and never to have been public land. There is an
existence of native title to land, or ownership of land by Filipinos 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 jura regalia.