FACTS ASSAILING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS ACT OF 1997 (RA 8371)

Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa v. Secretary of Environment and Natural
Resources, et al.
G.R. No. 135385, December 6, 2000

DOCTRINE:
Custom, from which customary law is derived, is also recognized under the Civil Code as a
source of law. Custom should be applied in cases where no codal provision is applicable. In other
words, in the absence of any applicable provision in the Civil Code, custom, when duly proven, can
define rights and liabilities.

FACTS:

Petitioners Cruz and Europa filed a suit for prohibition and mandamus assailing the
constitutionality of certain provisions of R.A. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples
Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA);

Under Section 63 of the IPRA, customary law, traditions and practices of indigenous peoples
shall be applied first with respect to property rights, claims of ownership, hereditary succession and
settlement of land disputes, and that any doubt or ambiguity in the interpretation thereof shall be
resolved in favor of the indigenous peoples. Also, Section 65 of the IPRA provides that customary
laws and practices shall be used to resolve disputes involving indigenous peoples;

Petitioners Cruz and Europa contend that the provisions of the IPRA in making customary
law applicable to the settlement of disputes involving ancestral domains and ancestral lands violate
the due process clause of the Constitution.

ISSUE:

Are the provisions of the IPRA in making customary law applicable to the settlement of
disputes involving ancestral domains and ancestral lands violate the due process clause of the
Constitution?

RULING:

NO. Following the constitutional mandate that "customary law govern property rights or
relations in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domains," the IPRA, by legislative fiat,
introduces a new concept of ownership. This is a concept that has long existed under customary
law.

Custom, from which customary law is derived, is also recognized under the Civil Code as a
source of law. Some articles of the Civil Code expressly provide that custom should be applied in
cases where no codal provision is applicable. In other words, in the absence of any applicable
provision in the Civil Code, custom, when duly proven, can define rights and liabilities.

Customary law is a primary, not secondary, source of rights under the IPRA and uniquely
applies to Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs) / Indigenous Peoples (IPs). Its recognition does
not depend on the absence of a specific provision in the civil law. The indigenous concept of
ownership under customary law is specifically acknowledged and recognized, and coexists with the
civil law concept and the laws on land titling and land registration. To be sure, the indigenous
concept of ownership exists even without a paper title. 

Thus, the petition was dismissed. The validity of the challenged provisions of RA 8371 is
sustained.