Land Titles and Deeds

be alienated. The exploration, development, and

Notes
utilization of natural resources shall be under the full
control and supervision of the State. The State may
directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into
I. Historical Background, Basic
co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing
Concept and General Principles agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or
associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital
A. Historical Background is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be
B. Regalian Doctrine for a period not exceeding twenty-five years,
renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and
- Generally, under this concept, private title to land under such terms and conditions as may be provided
must be traced to some grant, express or implied, by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water
from the Spanish Crown or its successors, the supply fisheries, or industrial uses other than the
development of water power, beneficial use may be
American Colonial Government, and thereafter, the
the measure and limit of the grant.”
Philippine Republic

- The abovementioned provision provides that except

- In a broad sense, the term refers to royal rights, or for agricultural lands for public domain which alone
those rights to which the King has by virtue of his may be alienated, forest or timber, and mineral
prerogatives
lands, as well as all other natural resources must
remain with the State, the exploration, development
- The theory of jure regalia was therefore nothing and utilization of which shall be subject to its full
more than a natural fruit of conquest
control and supervision albeit allowing it to enter
into co- production, joint venture or production-
sharing agreements, or into agreements with
Connected to this is the state’s power of dominion
foreign-owned corporations involving technical or
financial assistance for large-scale exploration,
- Capacity of the state to own or acquire property— development, and utilization
foundation for the early Spanish decree embracing
the feudal theory of jura regalia THE 1987 PROVISION HAD ITS ROOTS IN THE
1935 CONSTITUTION WHICH PROVIDES—
- This concept was rst introduced through the Laws
of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas
Section 1. All agricultural timber, and mineral lands of
the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum,
- The Philippines passed to Spain by virtue of and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy
and other natural resources of the Philippines belong
discovery and conquest. Consequently, all lands
to the State, and their disposition, exploitation,
became the exclusive patrimony and dominion of development, or utilization shall be limited to citizens
the Spanish Crown.
of the Philippines or to corporations or associations at
least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned
- The Law of the Indies was followed by the Ley by such citizens, subject to any existing right, grant,
Hipotecaria or the Mortgage Law of 1893. This law lease, or concession at the time of the inauguration of
provided for the systematic registration of titles and the Government established under this Constitution.
deeds as well as possessory claims
Natural resources, with the exception of public
agricultural land, shall not be alienated, and no
- The Maura Law: was partly an amendment and was license, concession, or lease for the exploitation,
development, or utilization of any of the natural
the last Spanish land law promulgated in the
resources shall be granted for a period exceeding
Philippines, which required the adjustment or twenty-five years, renewable for another twenty-five
registration of all agricultural lands, otherwise the years, except as to water rights for irrigation, water
lands shall revert to the State
supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the
development of water power, in which cases beneficial
TAKE NOTE THAT THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE IS use may be the measure and limit of the grant.
ENSHRINED IN OUR PRESENT AND PAST
CONSTITUTIONS THE 1973 CONSTITUTION REITERATED THE
THE 1987 CONSTITUTION PROVIDES UNDER REGALIAN DOCTRINE AS FOLLOWS—
NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY THE Section 8. All lands of public domain, waters,
minerals, coal, petroleum and other mineral oils, all
FOLLOWING—
forces of potential energy, fisheries, wildlife, and other
- “ Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters,
natural resources of the Philippines belong to the
minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all
State. With the exception of agricultural, industrial or
forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber,
commercial, residential, or resettlement lands of the
wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources
public domain, natural resources shall not be
are owned by the State. With the exception of
alienated, and no license, concession, or lease for the
agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not
fi

 exploration, or utilization of any of the natural

resources shall be granted for a period exceeding
twenty- five years, except as to water rights for
irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses
other than development of water power, in which
cases, beneficial use may by the measure and the limit
of the grant.

THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE DOESN'T NEGATE

NATIVE TITLE. THIS IS IN PURSUANCE TO WHAT
HAS BEEN HELD IN CRUZ V. SECRETARY OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of
Indigenous Peoples Rights Act on the ground that it
amounts to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s
ownership over lands of the public domain and all
other natural resources therein, by recognizing the
right of ownership of ICC or IPs to their ancestral
domains and ancestral lands on the basis of native
title. As the votes were equally divided, the
necessary majority wasn’t obtained and petition was
dismissed and the law’s validity was upheld
Justice Kapunan: Regalian theory doesn’t negate
the native title to lands held in private ownership since
time immemorial, adverting to the landmark case of
CARINO V. LOCAL GOVERNMENT, where the US SC
through Holmes held: “xxx 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.”
Existence of native titie to land, or ownership of
land by Filipinos by virtue of possession under a claim
of ownership since time immemorial and independent
of any grant from the Spanish crown as an exception
to the theory of jure regalia
Justice Puno: Carino case firmly established a
concept of private land title that existed irrespective of
any royal grant from the State and was based on the
strong mandate extended to the Islands via the
Philippine Bill of 1902. The IPRA recognizes the
existence of ICCs/IPs as a distinct sector in the
society. It grants this people the ownership and
possession of their ancestral domains and ancestral
lands and defines the extent of these lands and
domains
Justice Vitug: Carino cannot override the collective
will of the people expressed in the Constitution.
Justice Panganiban: all Filipinos, whether
indigenous or not, are subject to the Constitution, and
that no one is exempt from its all- encompassing
provisions