This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
135385, December 6, 2000 FACTS: Cruz, a noted constitutionalist, assailed the validity of the RA 8371 or the Indigenous People’s Rights Act on the ground that the law amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s 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, Cruz’s petition was dismissed and the IPRA law was sustained. Hence, ancestral domains may include natural resources – somehow against the regalian doctrine.
CARIÑO vs THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT, G.R. No. L-2746 December 6, 1906 MATEO CARIÑO vs THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT G.R. No. L-2746 December 6, 1906 FACTS: On June 23, 1903, Mateo Cariňo went to the Court of Land Registration to petition his inscription as the owner of a 146 hectare land he’s 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, Mateo’s 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.
Oh Cho vs Director of Lands G.R. No. 48321, August 31, 1946 Oh Cho vs Director of Lands G.R. No. 48321, August 31, 1946 FACTS: Oh Cho, a Chinese citizen, purchased from the Lagdameos a parcel of land in Tayabas, which they openly, continuously and adversely possessed since 1880. On January 17, 1940, Oh Cho applied for registration of this land. The Solicitor General opposed on the ground that Oh Cho lacked title to said land and also because he was an alien. ISSUEs: Whether or not Oh Cho had title Whether or not Oh Cho is entitled to a decree of registration HELD: Oh Cho failed to show that he has title to the lot, which may be confirmed under the Land Registration Act. All lands that were not acquired from the Government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to the public domain. An exception to the rule would be any land that should have been in the possession of an occupant and of his predecessors in interest since time immemorial, for such possession would justify the presumption that the land had never been part of the public domain or that it had been a private property even before the Spanish conquest. The applicant does not come under the exception, for the earliest possession of the lot by his first predecessor in interest began in 1880. Under the Public Land Act, Oh Cho is not entitled to a decree of registration of the lot, because he is an alien disqualified from acquiring lands of the
and litigation expenses of P51. and P10. 2002 FRANCISCO M.00. Inc. acquired the lot in good faith and for value. on July 7. Sometime in 1992. It alleged that petitioner had no cause of action against Cebu Country Club. who completed the required installment payments thereon under Act No. No. Inc. 727. RT-1310 (T-11351) and the issuance of another title in his name as the sole heir of Tomas Alonso. Inc. both of whom are lawyers and the former a congressman as well. 1926. 11351 which is the source title of TCT No. 11351 having been lost or destroyed during the war. INC. Inc. 130876 January 31. a lot adjacent to the disputed property. executed a final deed of sale in favor of petitioner’s father Tomas N. continuously. who died on June 16. and costs. that it caused the administrative reconstitution of Lot No.00. 727. cancellation of certificates of title and recovery of property against defendant Cebu Country Club.00.00. Inc. peacefully. 1120). Petitioner likewise prayed for the sum of P100. who died pendente lite and substituted by his legal heirs.: FACTS: The case is an appeal via certiorari from a decision of the Court of Appeals affirming in toto that of the Regional Trial Court. On November 5. RT-1310 (T-11351) does not pertain to Lot No. Hence. Cebu Country Club.00 and litigation expenses of P100. respectively. paying regularly the real estate taxes thereon. Moreover. however. as required by law. 727 during his lifetime. the possessory right could never ripen to ownership by prescription. Inc. petitioner found out from the office of the Registrar of Deeds of Cebu City that title to Lot No. assigned his sales certificate to petitioner’s father on December 18. on October 2. for the recovery of the property knowing fully well that said land was owned and utilized by Cebu Country Club. 1926. that petitioner’s father knew that the United Service Country Club. 000.00 and exemplary damages of P2. He alleged that the Cebu Country Club. vs. 1997. the name of the registered owner in TCT No. ALONSO vs. predecessor of Cebu Country Club. Hence. Inc. Inc. the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision.00 as reasonable litigation expenses. 000. Inc. Banilad Friar Lands Estate.. which was not complied with by the Lagmeos. 1963. Left with no other recourse. but since the latter is an alien. 1948. Alonso. petitioner made a formal demand upon Cebu Country Club. however. Oh Cho's predecessors in interest would have been entitled toa decree of registration had they applied for the same. 727 of the Banilad Friar Lands Estate from the Government of the Philippine Islands in or about the year 1911 in accordance with the Friar Lands Act (Act No.00 per hearing as appearance fee. hence. 1992. openly. RT-1310 (T-11351) in the name of United Service Country Club. since the same had prescribed and was barred by laches. petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. exclusively.000. with costs against the plaintiff. adversely. for Cebu Country Club. having been in possession of the land since 1935 until the present in the concept of an owner. Inc. the Director of Lands. 26. Inc.000. that TCT No. 14353 on March 24. a complaint for declaration of nullity and non-existence of deed/title. 1992. Cebu Country Club. that the deed was not registered with the Register of Deeds because of lack of technical requirements. CEBU COUNTRY CLUB. however. did not contain the technical description of the registered land which was inserted only on March 8. among them the approval of the deed of sale by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. on September 25. 1997. Judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff: declaring the contested property or Lot 727 as legally belonging to the defendant. This possessory right was what was transferred to Oh Cho. and litigation expenses of P51. and finally. Cebu City. that petitioner’s father or petitioner himself. substituted by his heirs.. that petitioner himself lived in Cebu City. Cebu Country Club. Oh Cho is disqualified from acquiring title over public land by prescription. filed with the trial court its answer with counterclaim. directing the plaintiff to pay attorney'’ fee of P400. that Cebu Country Club. As an alien.’s title is null and void. 1911. 1962 and August 18. to deliver possession of the property to petitioner. 1960. 727 of the Banilad Friar Lands Estate had been "administratively reconstituted from the owner’s duplicate" on July 26.R. In the firm belief that petitioner’s father is still the rightful owner of Lot No. declaring that the title to the contested Lot No. RT-1310 (T-11351). 734 and Assignment of Sales Certificate — showing that his father acquired Lot No. Alonso. pursuant to Republic Act No. was validly re-constituted in the name of the Cebu Country Club. twenty-eight (28) years after the issuance of TCT No.000. J. 727 of the Banilad Friar Lands Estate since there are no records showing that he ever sold or conveyed the disputed property to anyone. Cebu Country Club. 734. the Court of Appeals denied the motion. 000. 1997.00. the original of TCT No. Alonso and Asuncion Medalle. in 1946. the TCT provides that the reconstituted title was a transfer from TCT No.. Inc.. 1992.000. petitioners. petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court. a few kilometers away from the land in litigation. petitioner’s father never had any registered title under the Land Registration Act No. petitioner discovered documents and records — Friar Lands Sale Certificate Register/Installment Record Certificate No. 496 nor did he pay the necessary taxes on Lot No. It appears. that petitioner’s father never reconstituted his alleged title to Lot No. Cebu Country Club.public domain. that the reconstituted title which was issued on July 26. ALONSO.000. 810 of the Banilad Friar Lands Estate. 727 had come to pass to Cebu Country Club. nonprofit corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine Laws the purpose of which is to cater to the recreation and leisure of its members. On April 30. On March 8. Branch 8. No. the only son and sole heir of the late Tomas N.000. 727. The documents show that one Leoncio Alburo. 727 but did so over Lot No. Cebu City. not title. moral damages of P500. RT-13 10 (T-11351) despite the absence of any transaction of specific land dealing that would show how Lot No. respondent. G.00. 1120 and was consequently issued Patent No. for more than sixty (60) years. PARDO.R. 1960. Upon investigation of the status of the land. 727 in 1948 from the owner’s duplicate. . On March 27. FRANCISCO M. fraudulently and illegally managed to secure in its name the administrative reconstitution of TCT No. Cebu Country Club. Inc. Inc. never made any demand on Cebu Country Club. and render an accounting of the fruits and income of the land. its implementing Circular. prayed for the award of attorney’s fees in the amount of P900. acting for and in behalf of the government. denied petitioner’s claim and refused to deliver possession to him. RT-1310 (T-11531) was changed to Cebu Country Club.. predecessor of Cebu Country Club. Petitioner thus prayed for the cancellation of TCT No. Inc. CEBU COUNTRY CLUB. Sales Certificate No. Inc.00 by way of attorney’s fees plus P500. on March 31. Petitioner Francisco M. Inc. 178 and Circular No. 130876 January 31. By way of counterclaim. a lawyer by profession. Inc. 2002 G. this appeal. publicly. 000. and ordering petitioners to pay attorney’s fees of P400. After proceedings on appeal. the original vendee of Lot No. 6 of the General Land Registration Office. 727 as owner. is a non-stock. was occupying Lot No. Inc. INC. that unlike Cebu Country Club. Inc. Inc. 1948 under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 1021. The application for the registration of the land was a condition precedent. Inc. upon order of the Court of First Instance. GLRO Circular No.000. Cebu City. to restore to him the ownership and possession of said lot within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof.. as its main golf course. the most they had was mere possessory right.
" In addition. or from the issuance of the original title on November 19. and Assignment of Sale Certificate No. the deed of sale executed on March 27. the Court has ruled categorically that approval by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce of the sale of friar lands is indispensable for its validity. produced receipts showing real estate tax payments since 1949. rendering allegations of fraud irrelevant. Inc. Notwithstanding this fatal defect. that is. issued a directive to the Register of Deeds to register the lot in question in favor of Graciano Ingles. This Court has ruled that although tax declarations or realty tax payments are not conclusive evidence of ownership. 1931. 2.ISSUES: 1. in favor of Tomas N. that verification is rendered extremely difficult. Hence. Conspicuously. they are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner for no one in his right mind will be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or constructive possession. They also do not bear the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Cebu Country Club. 1. the Director of Lands. hence. there was no need for the covering deed of sale or other modes of conveyance. Inc. however. "In this jurisdiction. the purchase by an actual and bona fide settler or occupant of any portion of friar land shall be "agreed upon between the purchaser and the Director of Lands.’s name." The strongest suspicion cannot sway judgment or overcome the presumption of regularity. In an action for re-conveyance based on fraud. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the validity of TCT No." Worse. subject to the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources (mutatis mutandis). and tax declarations covering the property showed the number of the TCT of the land. as said. the most important of which was that the deed of sale executed by the Director of Lands was not approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. there is an important moiety in the Cabrera-Ingles case. Liao v. was admittedly in possession of the land since long before the Second World War. 1926. Petitioners next question the lack of technical description inscribed in the reconstituted title in Cebu Country Club. Worse. the imputation of fraud was so tardily brought. An action for re-conveyance is a legal remedy granted to a landowner whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another’s name. Alonso. by itself does not vest ownership of the land or estate covered thereby. "Under the law. secondly. On the other hand. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining respondent’s claim of ownership over Lot No. It was filed on September 25. Consequently. 727. petitioner failed to produce a single receipt of real estate tax payment ever made by his father since the sales patent was issued to his father on March 24. sixty-one (61) years after the title was issued on November 19. 727 in dispute. Cebu Country Club. Inc. but then the action must be filed within ten years from the issuance of the title since such issuance operates as a constructive notice. in Jesus P. especially due to the supervening event of the second world war during which practically all public records were lost or destroyed. some forty-four (44) years or sixty-one (61) years after its supposed occurrence. obtained its title by fraud in connivance with personnel of the Register of Deeds in 1941 or in 1948.’s title in the Cabrera-Ingles case. Having none. 1931. from the administrative reconstitution of title on July 26. 1948. Admittedly. The act of registration creates constructive notice to the whole world of the fact of such conveyance. hence. Cebu Country Club. Inc. The reconstitution of a title is simply the re-issuance of a lost duplicate certificate of title in its original form and condition. At most. petitioner Francisco’s father did not have any registerable title to the land in question. Alonso. Consequently. the doctrine of res-judicata does not apply. The sales patent. "The sea of suspicion has no shore. 1992. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not applying the doctrine of stare decisis. paid the realty taxes on the land even before the war. Court of Appeals. there can be no valid titles issued on the basis of such sale or assignment. Petitioner failed to adduce evidence of fraud. Reconstitution was based on the owner’s duplicate of the title. we rule that neither Tomas N. The two-year period is directory. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the trial court’s award for damages in the form of attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. or no longer available. he could not transmit anything to his sole heir. 1120. because. 1021." On this point. 4. 2. like the original certificate of title. This is not a bar to reconstitution of the title nor will it affect the validity of the reconstituted title. the Director of . Petitioner Francisco’s action in the court below was basically one of re-conveyance. Inc. Cebu Country Club. Imputations of fraud must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. "Approval by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce is indispensable for the validity of the sale. there is no identity of parties. been able to establish a clear title over the contested estate. or since 1931. 3. Here. he who charges fraud must prove such fraud in obtaining a title. so too must the title in this case be declared void. 1120 to validly convey title to said lot to Tomas N. 734. Consequently. the original title (TCT No." In his Memorandum filed on May 25. and the court that embarks upon it is without rudder or compass. if not impossible. the failure to submit the technical description within two (2) years would not invalidate the title. This is because there were basic requirements not complied with. Alonso. Neither has the respondent Cebu Country Club. the Court of Appeals ruled that "there was substantial compliance with the requirement of Act No. The most that petitioners could claim was that the Director of Lands issued a sales patent in the name of Tomas N. the action is barred by laches because of the long delay before the filing of the case. 2001. In fact. the absence of such approval made the sale null and void ab-initio. Alonso. petitioner Francisco Alonso or the latter’s heirs. In other words." Moreover. petitioner alleges that Cebu Country Club. Inc. 734. Petitioners assert that as the Court of Appeals annulled Cebu Country Club. the Solicitor General submitted to this Court certified copies of Sale Certificate No. neither petitioners nor their predecessor had any title to the land in question. There. Inc. 1926 by the Director of Lands was not approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and could not be registered. A registered owner is given two (2) years to file a plan of such land with the Chief of the General Land Registration Office. not jurisdictional. Tax receipts and declarations of ownership for taxation purposes are strong evidence of ownership. 1948. 1931 as a transfer from Transfer Certificate of Title No. Necessarily. Alonso nor his son Francisco M. Alonso or the latter’s heirs are the lawful owners of Lot No." On this point. nevertheless. admittedly petitioner could not show any torrens title ever issued to Tomas N. and had been paying the real estate taxes thereon based on tax declarations in its name with the title number indicated thereon. neither the titles to nor the parcels of land involved are the same. More importantly. it is the act of registration of the deed of conveyance that serves as the operative act to convey the land registered under the Torrens system. Momentarily casting aside the doctrine of res-judicata. This superseded the administrative reconstitution. and forty-four (44) years after its reconstitution on July 26. Under Act No. the Court of Appeals erred. both instruments do not bear the signature of the Director of Lands and the Secretary of the Interior. 4. Inc. when the title was administratively reconstituted. the failure to file such technical description within the two-year period would bar a transfer of the title to a third party in a voluntary transaction. fraud is never presumed. 11351) was issued to the United Service Country Club. Only recently. on November 19. after the administrative reconstitution of the title. It does not determine or resolve the ownership of the land covered by the lost or destroyed title. In the first place. was in possession of the land since 1931. RT-1310 (T-11351). Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the present action is barred by prescription and/or by laches. A reconstituted title. 5. which governs the administration and disposition of friar lands. in favor of Leoncio Alburo. 3. and even the corresponding deed of sale were not registered with the Register of Deeds and no title was ever issued in the name of the latter. the deed of sale was void. Inc.
Authority to Correct Clerical or Typographical Error and Change of First Name or Nickname. he consulted several doctors in the United States. alleging that he is a male transsexual. hormone treatment and breast augmentation. 174689 October 22. not a right. From then on. petitioner Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio filed a petition for the change of his first name and sex in his birth certificate in the RTC of Manila. In sum. the court believes that no harm. RA 9048 now governs the change of first name. Article 376 of the Civil Code provides: No person can change his name or surname without judicial authority. This Civil Code provision was amended by RA 9048 (Clerical Error Law). the Republic of the Philippines (Republic). petitioner. petitioner lived as a female and was in fact engaged to be married. HELD: A PERSON’S FIRST NAME CANNOT BE CHANGED ON THE GROUND OF SEX REASSIGNMENT The State has an interest in the names borne by individuals and entities for purposes of identification. All of a sudden. we DISMISS the complaint and counterclaim of the parties in Civil Case No. Under the law. He then sought to have his name in his birth certificate changed from “Rommel Jacinto” to “Mely. Alonso. stating that granting the petition would be more in consonance with the principles of justice and equity. Section 1 of RA 9048 provides: SECTION 1. then twice. Likewise. injury or prejudice will be caused to anybody or the community in granting the petition. 2001 when he underwent sex reassignment surgery in Bangkok. 251.” the voices said. Petitioner’s misfortune to be trapped in a man’s body is not his own doing and should not be in any way taken against him. He created them male and female. (The Legend of Malakas and Maganda) When is a man a man and when is a woman a woman? In particular. ROMMEL JACINTO DANTES SILVERIO vs. RA 9048 likewise provides the grounds for which change of first name may be allowed: . WHEREFORE. one of which is when the court deems it just and equitable that attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered and when the civil action or proceeding is clearly unfounded and where defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith. granting the petition would bring the much-awaited happiness on the part of the petitioner and her fiancé and the realization of their dreams. IN LIEU THEREOF. one was a male and the other was a female.” On June 4. The intent and effect of the law is to exclude the change of first name from the coverage of Rules 103 (Change of Name) and 108 (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) of the Rules of Court. Thailand. And worse. We declare that Lot No. now possesses the physique of a female. “anatomically male but feels. we DENY the petition for review. jurisdiction over applications for change of first name is now primarily lodged with the aforementioned administrative officers.Lands did not issue a directive to register the land in favor of Tomas N. On the contrary. that is. not judicial. 2003. and set aside the decision of the trial court.: When God created man. 727 D-2 of the Banilad Friar Lands Estate covered by Original Certificate of Title Nos. He underwent psychological examination. (Genesis 5:1-2) Amihan gazed upon the bamboo reed planted by Bathala and she heard voices coming from inside the bamboo. He made him in the likeness of God. Hence. On August 18. and 253 legally belongs to the Government of the Philippines. Petitions for change of name are controlled by statutes. His attempts to transform himself to a “woman” culminated on January 27. 174689 October 22. It alleged that there is no law allowing the change of entries in the birth certificate by reason of sex alteration. 5. However. Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court and RA 9048. does the law recognize the changes made by a physician using scalpel. the bamboo cracked and slit open. therefore. the sales patent and corresponding deed of sale executed in 1926 are now stale. 2007 ROMMEL JACINTO DANTES SILVERIO vs. 2002. Out came two human beings. thinks and acts as a female” and that he had always identified himself with girls since childhood.” and his sex from “male” to “female. Cebu City. filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals. 2006. An award of attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation is proper under the circumstances provided for in Article 2208 of the Civil Code. who has always felt. “Oh North Wind! North Wind! Please let us out!. 232. It vests the power and authority to entertain petitions for change of first name to the city or municipal civil registrar or consul general concerned. On February 23. A change of name is a privilege. Branch 08. Amihan named the man “Malakas” (Strong) and the woman “Maganda” (Beautiful). Feeling trapped in a man’s body. CEB 12926 of the trial court. that with his sexual re-assignment. J. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES GR No. It likewise lays down the corresponding venue. Branch 8. form and procedure. except for clerical or typographical errors and change of first name or nickname which can be corrected or changed by the concerned city or municipal civil registrar or consul general in accordance with the provisions of this Act and its implementing rules and regulations. thought and acted like a woman. thru the OSG. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES GR No. ISSUE: Whether or not the change of petitioner’s name and sex in his birth certificate is allowed under Articles 407 to 413 of the Civil Code. drugs and counseling with regard to a person’s sex? May a person successfully petition for a change of name and sex appearing in the birth certificate to reflect the result of a sex reassignment surgery? FACTS: On November 26. we SET ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals and that of the Regional Trial Court. the Court of Appeals rendered a decision in favor of the Republic. 2003. the remedy and the proceedings regulating change of first name are primarily administrative in nature. 2007 CORONA. the trial court rendered a decision in favor of petitioner. In particular. – No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order. until and unless an administrative petition for change of name is first filed and subsequently denied. In this connection. She pecked the reed once. this petition.
(11) loss. (9) acknowledgments of natural children. tainted with dishonor or extremely difficult to write or pronounce. (8) adoptions. (6) judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning. he must present proper or reasonable cause or any compelling reason justifying such change. . Neither is it recognized nor even mentioned by any law. he must show that he will be prejudiced by the use of his true and official name. He intended to make his first name compatible with the sex he thought he transformed himself into through surgery. a change of name does not alter one’s legal capacity or civil status. Grounds for Change of First Name or Nickname. annulments of marriage. Together with Article 376 of the Civil Code. ART. marriage. It was also filed in the wrong venue as the proper venue was in the Office of the Civil Registrar of Manila where his birth certificate is kept. adoptions. or even allege. In addition. The acts. transcribing or typing an entry in the civil register that is harmless and innocuous. were all correct. (2) The new first name or nickname has been habitually and continuously used by the petitioner and he has been publicly known by that first name or nickname in the community. That no correction must involve the change of nationality. (10) naturalization. including those corresponding to his first name and sex. For all these reasons. However. changing petitioner’s first name for his declared purpose may only create grave complications in the civil registry and the public interest. the sum total of capacities and incapacities) of a person in view of his age. declarations of nullity of marriages. The comprehensive term status… include such matters as the beginning and end of legal personality. All entries therein. divorce. which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding. These acts. expressly or impliedly. and (16) changes of name. a correction in the civil registry involving the change of sex is not a mere clerical or typographical error. (13) civil interdiction. (15) voluntary emancipation of a minor. loss or recovery of citizenship. Rule 108 now applies only to substantial changes and corrections in entries in the civil register. such as his being legitimate or illegitimate. “Status” refers to the circumstances affecting the legal situation (that is. and its various aspects. civil interdiction. adoption. Article 412 of the Civil Code provides: No entry in the civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order. any prejudice that he might suffer as a result of using his true and official name. he failed to show. no reasonable interpretation of the provision can justify the conclusion that it covers the correction on the ground of sex reassignment.” The birth certificate of petitioner contained no error. the petition in the trial court in so far as it prayed for the change of petitioner’s first name was not within that court’s primary jurisdiction as the petition should have been filed with the local civil registrar concerned. this provision was amended by RA 9048 in so far as clerical or typographical errors are involved. more or less permanent in nature. it had no merit since the use of his true and official name does not prejudice him at all. The correction or change of such matters can now be made through administrative proceedings and without the need for a judicial order. legitimation. Section 2(c) of RA 9048 defines what a “clerical or typographical error” is: “Clerical or typographical error” refers to a mistake committed in the performance of clerical work in writing. In sum. 407. or (12) recovery of citizenship. and can be corrected or changed only by reference to other existing record or records: Provided. Their effects are expressly sanctioned by the laws. such as misspelled name or misspelled place of birth or the like. In this case. However. acknowledgments of illegitimate children and naturalization). No correction is necessary. (7) legitimations. family relations. such as birth. The status of a person in law includes all his personal qualities and relations. marriages. or (3) The change will avoid confusion.SECTION 4. (5) annulments of marriage. the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed petitioner’s petition in so far as the change of his first name was concerned. The entries envisaged in Article 412 of the Civil Code and correctable under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court are those provided in Articles 407 and 408 of the Civil Code: ART. events or factual errors contemplated under Article 407 of the Civil Code include even those that occur after birth. however. naturalization and deaths) and judicial decrees (such as legal separations. events and judicial decrees produce legal consequences that touch upon the legal capacity. age. The following shall be entered in the civil register: (1) Births. It was an improper remedy because the proper remedy was administrative. Acts. In effect. events (such as births. or his being married or not. that provided under RA 9048. nationality and his family membership. (14) judicial determination of filiation. events and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of persons shall be recorded in the civil register. (2) marriages. status and nationality of a person. Before a person can legally change his given name. Petitioner’s basis in praying for the change of his first name was his sex reassignment. naturalization. judicial determination of filiation and changes of name). to remove the faults or error from” while to change means “to replace something with something else of the same kind or with something that serves as a substitute. status or sex of the petitioner. More importantly. In contrast. Rather than avoiding confusion. In this connection. emancipation. (3) deaths. assuming it could be legally done. 408. copying. sex reassignment is not among those acts or events mentioned in Article 407. It is a substantial change for which the applicable procedure is Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. – The petition for change of first name or nickname may be allowed in any of the following cases: (1) The petitioner finds the first name or nickname to be ridiculous. Article 407 of the Civil Code authorizes the entry in the civil registry of certain acts (such as legitimations. To correct simply means “to make or set aright. RA 9048 does not sanction a change of first name on the ground of sex reassignment. not ordinarily terminable at his own will. and sometimes even succession. (4) legal separations. capacity to have rights in general. that is. Under RA 9048. NO LAW ALLOWS THE CHANGE OF ENTRY IN THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE AS TO SEX ON THE GROUND OF SEX REASSIGNMENT The determination of a person’s sex appearing in his birth certificate is a legal issue and the court must look to the statutes. RA 9048 removed from the ambit of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court the correction of such errors.
the statutes define who may file petitions for change of first name and for correction or change of entries in the civil registry. Congress. (d) civil status of parents. In our system of government. The words “sex.” Since the statutory language of the Civil Register Law was enacted in the early 1900s and remains unchanged. among others. It is a part of a person’s legal capacity and civil status. However. the declaration of either parent of the newborn child. citizenship and religion of parents or. certain felonies under the Revised Penal Code and the presumption of survivorship in case of calamities under Rule 131 of the Rules of Court. – The declaration of the physician or midwife in attendance at the birth or. Under the Civil Register Law. it is for the legislature. visually done by the birth attendant (the physician or midwife) by examining the genitals of the infant. sex is defined as “the sum of peculiarities of structure and function that distinguish a male from a female” or “the distinction between male and female. However. should it choose to do so. 5. Petitioner pleads that “[t]he unfortunates are also entitled to a life of happiness. it is not a license for courts to engage in judicial legislation. there is no legal basis for his petition for the correction or change of the entries in his birth certificate. Second. by the physician or midwife in attendance at the birth or by either parent of the newborn child.” Female is “the sex that produces ova or bears young” and male is “the sex that has organs to produce spermatozoa for fertilizing ova. injury or prejudice to anyone. one of the most sacred social institutions. The Court recognizes that there are people whose preferences and orientation do not fit neatly into the commonly recognized parameters of social convention and that. not by the courts. Furthermore. The Court cannot enact a law where no law exists. the person above mentioned shall certify to the following facts: (a) date and hour of birth. shall be sufficient for the registration of a birth in the civil register.” For these reasons. The need for legislative guidelines becomes particularly important in this case where the claims asserted are statute-based. (e) place where the infant was born. Such declaration shall be exempt from documentary stamp tax and shall be sent to the local civil registrar not later than thirty days after the birth.” However. In this connection. “words that are employed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning are presumed to have been used in that sense unless the context compels to the contrary. no law authorizes the change of entry as to sex in the civil registry for that reason. is immutable. It might be theoretically possible for this Court to write a protocol on when a person may be recognized as having successfully changed his sex. not to make or amend it. It will allow the union of a man with another man who has undergone sex reassignment (a male-to-female post-operative transsexual). even the trial court itself found that the petition was but petitioner’s first step towards his eventual marriage to his male fiancé. life is indeed an ordeal. The changes sought by petitioner will have serious and wide-ranging legal and public policy consequences. the remedies petitioner seeks involve questions of public policy to be addressed solely by the legislature. Thus. while petitioner may have succeeded in altering his body and appearance through the intervention of modern surgery. The duty of the courts is to apply or interpret the law. To reiterate. When words are not defined in a statute they are to be given their common and ordinary meaning in the absence of a contrary legislative intent. This is fatal to petitioner’s cause. (c) names.” “male” and “female” as used in the Civil Register Law and laws concerning the civil registry (and even all other laws) should therefore be understood in their common and ordinary usage. and (f) such other data as may be required in the regulations to be issued. what proof must be presented and what procedures shall be observed. marriage. It believed that allowing the petition would cause no harm. a birth certificate is a historical record of the facts as they existed at the time of birth. or on anything else. there are various laws which apply particularly to women such as the provisions of the Labor Code on employment of women. In this connection. One of its essential requisites is the legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female. there being no legislative intent to the contrary. this Court has no authority to fashion a law on that matter. obscurity or insufficiency of the law. . To grant the changes sought by petitioner will substantially reconfigure and greatly alter the laws on marriage and family relations.A person’s sex is an essential factor in marriage and family relations. If the legislature intends to confer on a person who has undergone sex reassignment the privilege to change his name and sex to conform with his reassigned sex. In such declaration.” No argument about that. Section 5 of Act 3753 (the Civil Register Law) provides: SEC. what grounds may be invoked. at least for them. contentment and [the] realization of their dreams. It can only apply or interpret the written word of its co-equal branch of government. the sex of a person is determined at birth.” Thus. But there is no such special law in the Philippines governing sex reassignment and its effects. it has to enact legislation laying down the guidelines in turn governing the conferment of that privilege. it cannot be argued that the term “sex” as used then is something alterable through surgery or something that allows a post-operative male-to-female transsexual to be included in the category “female. is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman. Registration and certification of births. It is true that Article 9 of the Civil Code mandates that “[n]o judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence. to determine what guidelines should govern the recognition of the effects of sex reassignment. where they may be filed. First. of the mother alone. the determination of a person’s sex made at the time of his or her birth. Considering that there is no law legally recognizing sex reassignment. (b) sex and nationality of infant. Article 413 of the Civil Code provides: All other matters pertaining to the registration of civil status shall be governed by special laws. if not attended by error. These laws underscore the public policy in relation to women which could be substantially affected if petitioner’s petition were to be granted. the words “male” and “female” in everyday understanding do not include persons who have undergone sex reassignment. However. NEITHER MAY ENTRIES IN THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE AS TO FIRST NAME OR SEX BE CHANGED ON THE GROUND OF EQUITY The trial court opined that its grant of the petition was in consonance with the principles of justice and equity. This is wrong. in case the father is not known. Thus. Moreover. in default thereof.
in which they defend the constitutionality of the IPRA and pray that the petition be dismissed for lack of merit. YAOM TUGAS. DATU RAMON BAYAAN.. represented by her father CORNELIO MALID. WALTER N. HON. ALFREDO ABILLANOS. 1999. ROSEMARIE G. The CHR asserts that IPRA is an expression of the principle of parens patriae and that the State has the responsibility to protect and guarantee the rights of those who are at a serious disadvantage like indigenous peoples. DESCAGA. al). respondents Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) filed through the Solicitor General a consolidated Comment. 8371). COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS. the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) likewise filed a Motion to Intervene and/or to Appear as Amicus Curiae. MANGKATADONG AUGUSTO DIANO. SELEN. VENANCIO APANG. SAWAY. ATONG. INC. ESTEVEZ. FELAY DIAMILING. PAQUITO S. the government agency created under the IPRA to implement its provisions. HERMINIA S.intervenors. RODOLFO C. JESSIE ANDILAB. SR. BASILIO WANDAG. No. BAI KIRAMCONNIE SATURNO. JULIUS S. represented by her mother LINAY BALBUENA. IKALAHAN INDIGENOUS PEOPLE and HARIBON FOUNDATION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES. SOLEDAD M. and the leaders and members of 112 groups of indigenous peoples (Flavier. 135385. GERARDA. SAWAY. SAMIE SATURNO. JR. MANUEL T. BAYANI ASCARRAGA. Ponciano Bennagen. NARCISA M. otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA). 8371 (R. VICKY MAKAY. VIRGILIO CAYETANO. TIMUAY EDWIN B. REYMUNDO. RAFFY MALINDA. PEPE H. BAI TINANGHAGA HELINITA T. EDWARD M. EVELYN DUNUAN. BAY INAY DAYA-MELINDA S. et al. chanrobles virtual law library On March 23. ALBESO. ROEL S. DATU EDUAARDO BANDA. RESOLUTION PER CURIAM: chanrobles virtual law library Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa brought this suit for prohibition and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers. chanrobles virtual law library On October 19. chanrobles virtual law library On March 22.EN BANC [G. MANGKULINTAS. PONCIANO BENNAGEN. EMUY.. AGUILAR. SAMMY SALNUNGAN. JOSEPHINE M. intervenor. RENATO T. SALACAO. filed a motion to Intervene with attached Comment-in-Intervention. EVANGELISTA. SATUR S. another group. INTER-PEOPLES EXCHANGE. BAI NANAPNAY-LIZA SAWAY. They agree with the NCIP and Flavier. JOSEPH JUDE CARANTES. LEONARDA SAWAY. GERADA. MANUEL S. SALOME P. Inc. chanrobles virtual law library On November 10. et al. MARCELINO M. FILIPE G. EMBA. SULATAN. SARING MASALONG. SUKIM MALID. December 6. MENDI. TIMUAY MACARIO D. 1998. COLAS.[1 In compliance. AMOS. LUMANDONG. LOURDES D. 1999. LINDAHAY. MORENO MALID.R. NENENG MALID. FELIPE P.A. SARZA. ENDING. LANGLEY SEGUNDO. that IPRA is consistent with the Constitution and pray that the petition for prohibition and mandamus be dismissed. PANGAN. DAVI. (Haribon. assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. ABASALA. MARIO MANGCAL. MINORS MARICEL MALID. OFELIA T. MORANTE S. RICO O. ODETTE G. LADRA.. a group of intervenors. composed of the Ikalahan Indigenous People and the Haribon Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources. JENNYLYN MALID. GILBERT P. LIBERATO A. represented by her father TONY MALID. The Solicitor General is of the view that the IPRA is partly unconstitutional on the ground that it grants ownership over natural resources to indigenous peoples and prays that the petition be granted in part. LIESES. SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES. DATU MANTUMUKAW TEOFISTO SABASALES. MATERNIDAD M. For this reason it prays that the petition be dismissed. 2000] ISAGANI CRUZ and CESAR EUROPA. SAWAY. vs. Respondents. ANTONIO D. filed on October 13. MIRLANDO H.. ARIEL M. OSCAR DALUNHAY. petitioners. TERESA GASPAR. MALUDAO. the Court required respondents to comment. BAE MLOMO-BEATRIZ T. DATU MAKAPUKAW ADOLINO L. ALFREMO CARPIANO. TIMOL. INC. chanrobles virtual law library . represented by her father MONICO D. SAWAY. BAGON. JERSON P. GUINOSAO. DANILO M. MAURO VALONES. BENITO CARINO. CONCHITA G.FLAVIER. CARLING DOMULOT. ROMEO SALIGA. SECRETARY OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT and CHAIRMAN and COMMISSIONERS OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES. DATU MAUDAYAW-CRISPEN SAWAY. one of the authors of the IPRA. composed of Sen. HON. ONALAN. ROMEO A. et. intervenor. LADRA. DATU BEN PENDAO CABIGON. MIA GRACE L. EDTAMI MANSAYANGAN. DATU JOEL UNAD. LYNETTE CARANTES-VIVAL. LEOPOLDO ABUGAN. a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission. PULA BATO BLAAN TRIBAL FARMERS ASSOCIATION. PE. 1998. 1998 their Comment to the Petition. PERFECTO B. Juan Flavier. SALVADOR TIONGSON. Mr. and GREEN FORUM-WESTERN VISAYAS. TIMUAY JOSE ANOY. ELIZABETH L. NORMA MAPANSAGONOS. BUGNAY. HOGGANG. MANSANG-CAGAN. and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (Implementing Rules). JUAN M . They join the NCIP in defending the constitutionality of IPRA and praying for the dismissal of the petition. DATU BALITUNGTUNG-ANTONIO D. BAGON. DATU SAHAMPONG MALANAW VI. filed their Motion for Leave to Intervene. SUSAN BOLANIO. OND. LEVY ESTEVES. GIRON. respondents Chairperson and Commissioners of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP). SR. MADION MALID. chanrobles virtual law library In its resolution of September 29. TIWAN. DALUPINES. 1998. JIMMY UGYUB. GABIN. ANDRES MENDIOGRIN.).
and that any doubt or ambiguity in the interpretation thereof shall be resolved in favor of the indigenous peoples. and chanrobles virtual law library (5) Section 66 which vests on the NCIP the jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving rights of the indigenous peoples. forest cover or reforestation.[3 chanrobles virtual law library In addition. [5 chanrobles virtual law library Finally. Part II. develop. wilderness. the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources. Secretary of Interior and Local Governments. and Section 3(b) which. petitioners assail the validity of Rule VII. petitioners question the provisions of the IPRA defining the powers and jurisdiction of the NCIP and making customary law applicable to the settlement of disputes involving ancestral domains and ancestral lands on the ground that these provisions violate the due process clause of the Constitution.[4 chanrobles virtual law library These provisions are: chanrobles virtual law library (1) sections 51 to 53 and 59 which detail the process of delineation and recognition of ancestral domains and which vest on the NCIP the sole authority to delineate ancestral domains and ancestral lands. chanrobles virtual law library (3) Section 6 in relation to section 3(a) and 3(b) which defines the composition of ancestral domains and ancestral lands. claims of ownership. chanrobles virtual law library (4) Section 65 which states that customary laws and practices shall be used to resolve disputes involving indigenous peoples. namely. bodies of water. chanrobles virtual law library (2) Section 5. protect and conserve the ancestral domains and portions thereof which are found to be necessary for critical watersheds. and the right to enter into agreements with nonindigenous peoples for the development and utilization of natural resources therein for a period not exceeding 25 years. the jurisdiction of said officials over said area terminates. which provides that ancestral domains including inalienable public lands. and chanrobles virtual law library (7) Section 58 which gives the indigenous peoples the responsibility to maintain. in relation to section 3(a). development or exploration of minerals and other natural resources within the areas claimed to be their ancestral domains. wildlife sanctuaries. the parties and intervenors filed their respective memoranda in which they reiterate the arguments adduced in their earlier pleadings and during the hearing. Section 1 of the NCIP Administrative Order No. chanrobles virtual law library (6) Section 57 which provides for priority rights of the indigenous peoples in the harvesting. extraction.The motions for intervention of the aforesaid groups and organizations were granted.[2 chanrobles virtual law library Petitioners also content that. 1. mineral and other resources found within ancestral domains are private but community property of the indigenous peoples. chanrobles virtual law library (5) Section 8 which recognizes and enumerates the rights of the indigenous peoples over the ancestral lands. renewable for not more than 25 years. chanrobles virtual law library (4) Section 7 which recognizes and enumerates the rights of the indigenous peoples over the ancestral domains. mangroves. which provides that the administrative relationship of the NCIP to the Office of the President is characterized as a lateral but autonomous . by providing for an all-encompassing definition of ancestral domains and ancestral lands which might even include private lands found within said areas. Article XII of the Constitution: chanrobles virtual law library (1) Section 3(a) which defines the extent and coverage of ancestral domains. hereditary succession and settlement of land disputes. 1999. in turn. protected areas. traditions and practices of indigenous peoples shall be applied first with respect to property rights. chanrobles virtual law library (2) Section 52[i] which provides that upon certification by the NCIP that a particular area is an ancestral domain and upon notification to the following officials. chanrobles virtual law library Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the following provisions of the IPRA and its Implementing Rules on the ground that they amount to an unlawful deprivation of the States ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources therein. Secretary of Justice and Commissioner of the National Development Corporation. Sections 3(a) and 3(b) violate the rights of private landowners. chanrobles virtual law library Oral arguments were heard on April 13. Thereafter. defines ancestral lands. chanrobles virtual law library (3) Section 63 which provides the customary law. series of 1998. in violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in Section 2.
They contend that said Rule infringes upon the Presidents power of control over executive departments under Section 17. the case was redeliberated upon. the Rules and Regulations Implementing the IPRA.A. and Panganiban. development. 58. JJ. Melo.A. and related provisions of R. see separate opinion domain vs regalian doctrine By Fr. Gonzaga-Reyes. chanrobles virtual law library Davide. and Section 57 of the IPRA which he contends should be interpreted as dealing with the large-scale exploitation of natural resources and should be read in conjunction with Section 2. Government (Concluded) . the members of the Court voted as follows: chanrobles virtual law library Seven (7) voted to dismiss the petition.A. Ynares-Santiago. chanrobles virtual law library (3) The issuance of a writ of prohibition directing the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to cease and desist from implementing Department of Environment and Natural Resources Circular No. chanrobles virtual law library Seven (7) other members of the Court voted to grant the petition. Article VII of the Constitution.. Bellosillo. Gonzaga-Reyes. and De Leon. Section 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. 7. 7 (a)(b). 8371 are unconstitutional. 8371 are unconstitutional and invalid.A.J. chanrobles virtual law library (2) The issuance of a writ of prohibition directing the Chairperson and Commissioners of the NCIP to cease and desist from implementing the assailed provisions of R. 8. Buena. Quisumbing. chanrobles virtual law library (4) The issuance of a writ of prohibition directing the Secretary of Budget and Management to cease and desist from disbursing public funds for the implementation of the assailed provisions of R. pursuant to Rule 56.relationship for purposes of policy and program coordination.. Mendoza and Panganiban JJ. Accordingly. Justice Panganiban filed a separate opinion expressing the view that Sections 3 (a)(b). Jr..A. which he believes must await the filing of specific cases by those whose rights may have been violated by the IPRA. 8371. Mendoza. series of 1998. 5. chanrobles virtual law library As the votes were equally divided (7 to 7) and the necessary majority was not obtained. Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. Kapunan. Justices Melo. 65 and 66 and other related provisions of R.. However.[7 chanrobles virtual law library After due deliberation on the petition. Justice Vitug also filed a separate opinion expressing the view that Sections 3(a). the voting remained the same. 7. Quisumbing. 8371 and its Implementing Rules. 59. Bernas. 5. Vitug. 1. 65. Pardo. 52[I]. Buena. 6. 8. and 66 of the law.[6 chanrobles virtual law library Petitioners pray for the following: chanrobles virtual law library (1) A declaration that Sections 3. Philippine Daily Inquirer First Posted 04:06:00 10/06/2008 Filed Under: Mindanao peace process. Kapunan. chanrobles virtual law library Puno. concur. 2. 63. sustaining the validity of the challenged provisions of R. Joaquin G.J. Justice Mendoza voted to dismiss the petition solely on the ground that it does not raise a justiciable controversy and petitioners do not have standing to question the constitutionality of R. and Santiago join. the petition is DISMISSED. S.A. 8371. 6. and De Leon join in the separate opinions of Justices Panganiban and Vitug.. chanrobles virtual law library Attached hereto and made integral parts thereof are the separate opinions of Justices Puno. utilization and conservation of Philippine natural resources. and 57 of R. and chanrobles virtual law library (5) The issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources to comply with his duty of carrying out the States constitutional mandate to control and supervise the exploration. He reserves judgment on the constitutionality of Sections 58. Part II. 8371 are unconstitutional. Vitug. Rule III of NCIP Administrative Order No. On the other hand.A. which the Chief Justice and Justices Bellosillo. chanrobles virtual law library SO ORDERED. C. Jr. Laws. after redeliberation. Justice Puno also filed a separate opinion sustaining all challenged provisions of the law with the exception of Section 1. 59. 8371. 57. series of 1998. Pardo. Justice Kapunan filed an opinion.
" Moreover. mineral and other natural resources. Those who opposed the law argued that the Cariño decision could not be superior to the will of the sovereign people expressed in the 1935. social and cultural welfare. and other lands individually owned whether alienable and disposable or otherwise. pasture. Otherwise. Article XII of the Constitution. stealth or as a consequence of government projects or any other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private individuals/corporations. Their ancestors had territories over which they ruled themselves and related with other tribes. and natural resources therein. force majeure or displacement by force. arguing from the due process clause.MANILA. communally or individually since time immemorial. residential lots. and make them part of." To make the long story short. economic. residential. force majeure or displacement by force. have been held under a claim of private ownership by ICCs/IPs. It shall include ancestral lands. At the heart of Ipra are the concepts of ancestral domain and ancestral land. bodies of water. IPs shall cease to exist as distinct peoples. continuously. families and clans who are members of the ICCs/IPs since time immemorial. including. DENR in 2000. worship areas. the central objection to its constitutionality was that it unlawfully deprived the State of ownership over lands of the public domain as well as of minerals and other natural resources therein. as to the Constitution's reference to the applicability of customary law. hunting grounds. swidden farms and tree lots. burial grounds. or as a consequence of government projects and other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private individuals/corporations. and which are necessary to ensure their economic. asserting their rights to it. even accepting jura regalia. by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest. rice terraces or paddies. but not limited to. Ipra defined native title as referring to "pre-conquest rights to lands and domains which. deceit. private forests. the Supreme Court voted 7 to 7 on unconstitutionality. especially with the intrusion of the governance aspect introduced by the MOA-AD. forests." Ancestral land "refers to land occupied. however. Their survival depends on securing or acquiring land rights. When the Ipra Law was challenged before the Supreme Court in Cruz v. hew them to." Ancestral land. Meanwhile. both the GRP and the MILF were in agreement on this on the basis of the Supreme Court decision in Cruz v. the composition of the Supreme Court has changed. socio-cultural and spiritual practices. As mentioned earlier. DENR. continuously to the present except when interrupted by war. and lands which may no longer be exclusively occupied by ICCs/IPs but from which they traditionally had access to for their subsistence and traditional activities. Moreover. the air. Its House counterpart. was that.Senator Flavier continued his sponsorship speech on the Ipra Law thus: "The IPs are the offsprings and heirs of the peoples who have first inhabited and cared for the land long before any central government was established. Ipra still kept for the State control over natural resources even in ancestral domain. forest and the animals. it was argued that what was meant was that Congress should look closely into the customary laws and. . Ipra defines ancestral domain as referring to "all areas generally belonging to ICCs/IPs comprising lands. and depending on it. Flavier's Senate Bill No. In my column of Sept. the stream of laws and publish them in order to satisfy the "due process clause. possessed and utilized by individuals. was approved with no objection. 8 I discussed the Ipra procedure for its implementation. is narrower than ancestral domain which refers to more than just land. Spain could claim dominium only over unoccupied and unclaimed portions of the islands. These now form the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997. and change in composition can result in alteration of doctrine. the mountains. Philippines . It will not be easy. stealth." And as the MOA-AD pointed out. have never been public lands and are thus indisputably presumed to have been held that way since before the Spanish Conquest. their dwelling. deceit. This is their environment in its totality. authored by Rep. therefore. The IPs' culture is the living and irrefutable proof to this. as far back as memory reaches. under claims of individual or traditional group ownership. held under a claim of ownership. coastal areas. 9225. House Bill No. The defenders therefore. the water. recognized the existence of native title prior to arrival of the colonists. 1728 was carried by 21 senators with neither a vote against nor an abstention. But the important element of these concepts is that both ancestral domain and ancestral land are considered private and do not come under the "public domain. These too are central to the rejected GRP-MILF draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). thus failing to muster a majority to declare the law unconstitutional." The main contention of those who defended the Ipra Law. agricultural. Their existence as indigenous peoples is manifested in their own lives through political. inland waters. occupied or possessed by ICCs/IPs by themselves or through their ancestors. 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. to the present except when interrupted by war. These territories-the land-include people. in violation of the regalian doctrine still embodied in Section 2. particularly the home ranges of ICCs/IPs who are still nomadic and/or shifting cultivators. plants. with specificity and by proper recitals. Gregorio Andolana of North Cotabato.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.