Case # 34 – Oh Cho vs.

Director of Lands

Facts:

Oh Cho, a Chinese citizen, purchased from the Lagdameos a parcel of land,

which has been openly, continuously and adversely possessed since 1880. On January
17, 1940, Oh Cho applied for registration of this land. The Director of Lands opposed on
the ground that Oh Cho lacked title to said land and also because he was an alien who
was disqualified from acquiring lands of the public domain.

Issues:

1. Whether or not Oh Cho has title to the lot.

2. Whether or not Oh Cho is entitled to a decree of registration.

Ruling:

1. No, because 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.

2. No, because 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 public domain.

Moreover, Oh Cho’s predecessors in interest failed to comply with the condition

precedent to apply for the registration of the land of which they had been in
possession at least since July 26, 1894. So, what was transferred to Oh Cho is
merely possessory right which cannot ripen to ownership by prescription (aliens
disqualified to own by prescription).
Case # 41 – Cruz vs. Secretary (Opinion by Justice Puno)

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 People’s 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 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.

Issue:

Whether or not certain provisions of the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997
(IPRA) and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) are unconstitutional for
unlawfully depriving the State of its ownership over lands of the public domain, minerals,
and other natural resources therein, violating the Regalian Doctrine enshrined in
Section 2, Article 12 of the Constitution.

Ruling:

No, because according to Justice Puno’s separate opinion these are the reasons
of why IPRA and its IRR are not violative of the Constitution:
1. These lands claimed by the indigenous cultural communities or indigenous
peoples (ICCs/IPs) have long been theirs by virtue of native title.
2. Native title is an exception to the Regalian Doctrine.
3. Native titles provide a different type of private ownership in which 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.
4. It complies with Regalian Doctrine in which natural resources within ancestral
domains are not owned by the ICCs/IPs. The ICCs/IPs are limited to lands,
bodies of water traditionally and actually occupied by them, 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 ICCs/IPs also own all
the other natural resources found within the ancestral domains.
5. Land titles do not exist in the indigenous people’s economic and social system.
The concept of individual land ownership under the civil law is alien to them.