More than the physical characterization of ancestral lands, what makes ancestral lands unique

from other concepts of real property is that it covers the “total environment[,] including the
spiritual and cultural bonds to the areas which the ICCs/IPs possess, occupy[,] and use and to
which they have claims of ownership.”128 ICCs and IPs rely on their ancestral lands and the
natural resources contained therein for their sustenance, both materially and spiritually, so
much so that displacing them from their lands or threatening their possession of such lands,
even to the slightest degree, is considered as a direct and serious attack to their “very existence
as a people and as a community.”1

Section 7 (h) of the IPRA unequivocally recognizes the “[r]ight to resolve land conflicts in
accordance with customary laws of the area where the land is located, and only in default
thereof shall the complaints be submitted to amicable settlement and to the Courts of Justice
whenever necessary.”132 In clear terms, the law accords primacy to customary laws as a tool of
resolving conflicts related to ancestral lands. This is bolstered by Section 65 of the IPRA, which
provides that “[w]hen disputes involve ICCs/IPs, customary laws and practices shall be used to
resolve the dispute.”133 These provisions of the IPRA regarding the primacy of customary law is
in furtherance of the “constitutional policy of recognizing the application of thereof[,]” with the
ultimate objective of attaining social justice for the IPs.134
ON CUSTOMARY LAWS
It is readily apparent from the constitutional records that the framers of the
Constitution did not intend Congress to decide whether ancestral domains shall be
public or private property. Rather, they acknowledged that ancestral domains shall be
treated as private property, and that customary laws shall merely determine whether
such private ownership is by the entire indigenous cultural community, or by
individuals, families, or clans within the community.
A person’s possession of the trait of impartiality desirable of a judge has nothing to do
with his or her ethnic roots. In this wise, the indigenous peoples are as capable of
rendering justice as the non-indigenous peoples for, certainly, the latter have no
monopoly of the concept of justice.
otably, the use of customary laws under IPRA is not absolute, for the law speaks merely
of primacy of use.[176] The IPRA prescribes the application of such customary laws
where these present a workable solution acceptable to the parties, who are members of
the same indigenous group. This interpretation is supported by Section 1, Rule IX of the
Implementing Rules which states:
Section 1. Primacy of Customary Law. All conflicts related to ancestral domains and
lands, involving ICCs/IPs, such as but not limited to conflicting claims and boundary
disputes, shall be resolved by the concerned parties through the application of
customary laws in the area where the disputed ancestral domain or land is located.A
All conflicts related to the ancestral domains or lands where one of the parties is a non-
ICC/IP or where the dispute could not be resolved through customary law shall be heard
and adjudicated in accordance with the Rules on Pleadings, Practice and Procedures
Before the NCIP to be adopted hereafter. (Emphasis supplied.)

The application of customary law is limited to disputes concerning property rights or

relations in determining the ownership and extent of the ancestral domains,[177] where
all the parties involved are members of indigenous peoples,[178] specifically, of the
same indigenous group.

***It therefore follows that when one of the parties to a dispute is a non-member of an
indigenous group, or when the indigenous peoples involved belong to different groups,
the application of customary law is not required.

Like any other law, the objective of IPRA in prescribing the primacy of customary law in
disputes concerning ancestral lands and domains where all parties involved are
indigenous peoples is justice. The utilization of customary laws is in line with the
constitutional policy of recognizing the application thereof through legislation passed by
Congress.

Furthermore, the recognition and use of customary law is not a novel idea in this
jurisdiction. Under the Civil Code, use of customary law is sanctioned, as long as it is
proved as a fact according to the rules of evidence,[179] and it is not contrary to law,
public order or public policy.[180] Moreover, the Local Government Code of 1991 calls
for the recognition and application of customary laws to the resolution of issues
involving members of indigenous peoples. This law admits the operation of customary
laws in the settling of disputes if such are ordinarily used in barangays where majority of
the inhabitants are members of indigenous peoples.[181]

ON APPEALS
In any case, there are sufficient checks in the law against any abuse by the NCIP of its
quasi-judicial powers. Section 67 states that the decision of the NCIP shall be appealable
to the Court of Appeals by petition for review. The regular remedies under our rules of
procedure are likewise available to any party aggrieved by the decision of the NCIP.
That Congress did not intend to place the NCIP under the control of the President in all
instances is evident in the IPRA itself, which provides that the decisions of the NCIP in
the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions shall be appealable to the Court of Appeals,
[187] like those of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC). Nevertheless, the NCIP, although independent to a
certain degree, was placed by Congress
Sec. 9. Jurisdiction.--The Court of Appeals shall exercise:
(1) Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas
corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction;

x x x.

[171] Section 62. Resolution of Conflicts.- In cases of conflicting interest, where there are
adverse claims within the ancestral domains as delineated in the survey plan, and which
can not be resolved, the NCIP shall hear and decide, after notice to the proper parties,
the disputes arising from the delineation of such ancestral domains: Provided, That if
the dispute is between and/or among ICCs/IPs regarding the traditional boundaries of
their respective ancestral domains, customary process shall be followed. The NCIP shall
promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to carry out its adjudicatory functions:
Provided, further, That any decision, order, award or ruling of the NCIP on any
ancestral domain dispute or on any matter pertaining to the application,
implementation, enforcement and interpretation of this Act may be brought for Petition
for Review to the Court of Appeals within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof.