FACTS:

Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for prohibition and mandamus assailing the
constitutionality of certain provisions of RA. 8371 or the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997
(IPRA) and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR). Said law recognizes the right of
ownership of Indigenous Cultural Communities or Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) to their
ancestral domains and ancestral lands on the basis of native title. The petitioners contends
that:

1. The provisions of the IPRA and its IRR are unconstitutional on the ground that these
amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of the public
domain, thus, in violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in section 2, Article XII of
the Constitution.
- Regalian Doctrine - the basic foundation of the State's property regime. Section 2,
Article XII of the Constitution, more specifically the declaration that the State owns
all lands of the public domain, minerals and natural resources - none of which,
except agricultural lands, can be alienated. In several cases, this Court has
consistently held that non-agricultural land must first be reclassified and converted
into alienable or disposable land for agricultural purposes by a positive act of the
government. Mere possession or utilization thereof, however long, does not
automatically convert them into private properties.

2. Grants ownership of natural resources to the indigenous

3. Provides for an all-encompassing definition of “ancestral domains” and “ancestral lands”,

it might include private lands found within the said areas.

On the other hand, CHR asserts that IPRA is an expression of the principle of parens patriae. As
such, the State has the responsibility to protect and guarantee the rights of those who are at a
serious disadvantage like indigenous people.

Issue:

Whether or not the IPRA violate the Regalian Doctrine?

Ruling:

No, there was no violation. On the first deliberation a 7-7 votes was obtained. After re-
deliberation the same results were obtained. Pursuant to Section 7, Rule 56 of the Rules of
Court, the petition was dismissed, and the validity of the law, deemed upheld.
Deliberation, Opinions:

1. 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.

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 indisputably presumed to have been held that
way since before the Spanish Conquest.

Citing the Carino ruling,

“…As far back 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.”

Hence, the doctrine does not negate the native title as the above ruling became the exception
to the theory of jura regalia.

2. 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.

The law does not also deny the State an active and dominant role in the utilization of
our country's natural resources. Through the imposition of certain requirements and
conditions for the exploration, development and utilization of the natural resources
under existing laws, the State retains full control over such activities, whether done on
small-scale basis or otherwise.

i.e ICC’s/ IP’s are limited to exploration which is merely a preliminary activity, it cannot be
equated with the entire process of "exploration, development and utilization" of natural
resources which under the Constitution belong to the State

3. The definition of ancestral land and ancestral domain limits the application of IPRA.

Ancestral domains are all areas belonging to ICCs/IPs held under a claim of ownership,
occupied or possessed by ICCs/IPs by themselves or through their ancestors
communally or individually since time immemorial, continuously until the present, except
when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a
consequence of government projects or any other voluntary dealings with government
and/or private individuals or corporations.

eg, Inland waters, coastal area, natural resources therein

Ancestral lands are lands held by the ICCs/IPs under the same conditions as ancestral
domains except that these are limited to lands and that these lands are not merely
occupied and possessed but are also utilized by the ICCs/IPs under claims of
individual or traditional group ownership. These lands include but are not limited to
residential lots, rice terraces or paddies, private forests, swidden farms and tree lots

i.e TheICCs/IPs are given the right to claim ownership over "lands, bodies of water
traditionally and actually occupied by ICCs/IPs, sacred places, traditional hunting and
Mushing grounds and all improvements made by them at any time within the domains."
It will be noted that this enumeration does not mention bodies of water not
occupied by the ICCs/IPs, minerals, coal, wildlife, Pora and fauna in the traditional
hunting grounds, fish in the traditional Mshing grounds, forests or timber in the sacred
places, etc. and all other natural resources found within the ancestral domains.

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, as it is considered a community property.