Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LTD Separate Opinion of Justice Puno in Cruz V Secretary of DENR
LTD Separate Opinion of Justice Puno in Cruz V Secretary of DENR
Secretary of DENR
History of Philippine Land Laws
Facts:
In 1997, RA 8371 (Indigenous Peoples Rights Act/IPRA) was passed. Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa
filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus, questioning the constitutionality of certain provisions
of IPRA: a) It allows the indigenous people/cultural community to OWN NATURAL RESOURCES ; b) It
defines ancestral lands and ancestral domains in such a way that it may include private lands
owned by other individuals; c) It categorizes ancestral lands and domains held by native title as
never to have been public land; d) It violates due process in allowing NCIP (National Commission on
Indigenous Peoples) to take jurisdiction over IP land disputes and making customary law apply to
these. In the first deliberation of the SC, the votes were 77, so the case was redeliberated upon.
Issue:
Did the IPRA violate the Regalian Theory?
A. IPRA: Under the IPRA law, lands which have not been registered before, if granted with a
CADT/CALT, will be recognized as privately owned by the IPs from the beginning thus, has
never been part of public domain.
B. Regalian Theory: Lands which has not been recognized as privately owned belongs to the State
Held:
No Final Decision. Petition dismissed due to lack of votes; Law remained valid and constitutional (7
to grant 7 to dismiss).
Justice Punos Separate Opinion: The IPRA Law DID NOT VIOLATE the Regalian Theory
1. These lands claimed by the IPs have long been theirs BY VIRTUE OF NATIVE TITLE; they
have lived there even before the Spanish colonization. Native title refers to ICCs/IPs preconquest
rights to lands and domains held under a claim of private ownership as far back as memory
reaches. These lands are deemed never to have been public lands and are indisputable presumed
to have been held that way since before the Spanish Conquest.
2. AND Native Title is an Exception to the Regalian Doctrine: ... Oh Cho vs Director of Lands:
This exception would be any land that should have been in the possession of an occupant and of
his predecessorsininterest since time immemorial
3. Native Titles provide a different Type of Private Ownership
Sec. 5. Indigenous concept of ownership. Indigenous concept of ownership sustains the view
that ancestral domains and all resources found therein shall serve as the material bases of their
cultural integrity. The indigenous concept of ownership generally holds that ancestral domains
are the ICCs/IPs private but community property which belongs to all generations and
therefore cannot be sold, disposed or destroyed. It likewise covers sustainable traditional
resource rights.
4. It complies with Regalian Doctrine: Natural Sources within ancestral domains are not
owned by the IPs
* The IPs claims are limited to lands, bodies of water traditionally and actually occupied by
ICCs/IPs, sacred places, traditional hunting and fishing grounds, and all improvements
made by them at any time within the domains;
* IPRA did not mention that the IPs also own all the other natural resources found within the
ancestral domains
Discussion related to the topic of the Torrens System and Mode of Acquiring Ownership
(land):
I. HISTORY ON THE MODE OF ACQUIRING LAND OWNERSHIP IN THE PHILIPPINES:
A. Laws of the Indies
The Regalian Theory is a Western legal concept first introduced by the Spaniards into the country
through the Laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas.
By virtue of Spains "discovery" and conquest of the Philippines, its lands became the
exclusive patrimony and dominion of the Spanish Crown
Back then, the Spanish Government distributed the lands by issuing royal grants and
concessions to Spaniards, both military and civilian