I.

The Action for Reconveyance shall prosper.

Under the law, an action for reconveyance is a legal and equitable remedy to the rightful
owner of the land which has been erroneously registered in the name of another for the purpose
of compelling the latter to transfer or reconvey the land to him.
In this case, it can be said that Rocky and his heirs are the rightful owners of the land
subject to the homestead patent since they have continuously cultivated such from 1990-2005.
Having cultivated the land for 15 years is sufficient proof that they have satisfied the
requirements in the granting of the homestead patent, thus, they have vested rights therein. It
follows then that the action for reconveyance shall prosper since such land has been registered in
the name of Marco who has no rights over the subject land.

II.

III.
3.1. The sale is not valid.
Sec 116 of CA 141 has provided that except in favor of the Government or any of
its branches, units or institutions, or legally constituted banking corporations, lands acquired
under the free patent or homestead provisions shall not be subject to encumbrance or alienation
from the date of the approval of the application and for a term of five years from and after the
date of issuance of the patent or grant.
Considering the fact that the land is acquired through free patent, Cromwell has
no right to alienate or encumber such land within 5 years from granting of the patent. However,
in this case, he had sold such in 2013, 3 years from the granting of the patent.
Thus, the sale is not valid.

3.2. Same is through with Homestead patents.

IV.

IV.
5.1 Sec 5. Chapter III of RA 8371 defines the concept of indigenous ownership as
communal. The indigenous concept of ownership generally holds that the lands in ancestral
domains of the IP’s are not necessarily owned by a single private individual but a community
property which belongs to all generations and therefore, cannot be sold, disposed, or destroyed.
5.2
1. The concept of Parens Patriae in the Constitution and the recognition of the rights of
indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national unity and development.
2. The ILO Convention No. 169 which recognizes the aspirations of indigenous and tribal
peoples to exercise control over their own institutions, ways of life and economic development
and to maintain and develop their identities, languages and religions, within the framework of the
States in which they live.
3. The draft of the UNDRIP.
4. The concept of Native Title which refers to pre-conquest rights to lands and domains
which, as far back as memory reaches, have been held under a claim of private ownership by
ICCs/IPs, have never been public lands and are thus indisputably presumed to have been held
that way since before the Spanish Conquest

6.
DEF B’laan Clan’s arguments are untenable/
Under the law, the IP’s or ICC’s have exclusive rights over lands of the ancestral domain.
This shall only extend to lands, and not to the resources therein, by the Constitutional Provision
that the natural resources are owned by the state.
While the IPRA law recognizes the rights of the IP’s with respect to ancestral domains, it
also protects the rights vested upon persons, indigenous or not, who may have acquired rights of
ownership or rights to exploit natural resources within the ancestral domain.
In this case, while the mineral land is situated in the ancestral domain of the clan, this
does not necessarily mean that the minerals found within them shall also be exclusively owned
by the clan by the fact that their rights shall only extend to lands. Moreover, ABC has vested
rights over the exploitation already and this shall be protected.
The lease agreement, however, is violative of the Constitution since it only provides that
lease shall only be for 25 years. In this case, however, it extended to the 25-year prohibitive
period enshrined in the Constitution. (di ko sure dito sa lease)

7.
a.  Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest have been in open,
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the
public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, for at least thirty years
immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except when
prevented by war or force majeure. 
b. that they have been in OCEN possession of the land since June 12, 1945 or earlier
under a bona-fide claim of ownership.
(di ko sure to)
8.