Apiado, Elyn D.

| JD-2-1 LTD Case Digests

CRUZ vs SEC. OF DENR

GR NO. 135385; December 6, 2000

FACTS:
The Petitioners Cruz et. al. assailed the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No.
8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its implementing rules
and regulations (IRR). They complained, among others, that the provisions amounted to an unlawful
deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural
resources therein, and that they granted ownership over these natural resources to indigenous peoples n
violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in section 2, Article XII of the Constitution. Thus, it is
unconstitutional. The provisions provided, inter alia, that ancestral domains including inalienable public
lands, bodies of water, mineral and other resources found within ancestral domains were private but
community property of the indigenous peoples and gave the indigenous peoples the responsibility to
maintain, develop, protect and conserve the ancestral domains and portions thereof which were found to
be necessary for critical watersheds, mangroves, wildlife sanctuaries, wilderness, protected areas, forest
cover or reforestation. The petitioners also contended that, by providing for an all encompassing definition
of “ancestral lands” which might even include private lands found within said areas, the provisions
violated the rights of private landowners. In addition, the petitioners questioned the provisions of the
IPRA making customary law applicable to the settlement of disputes involving ancestral domains and
ancestral lands.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution.

RULING:
No. The provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution. The SC deliberated upon the
matter. After deliberation they voted and reached a 7-7 vote. They deliberated again and the same result
transpired. Since there was no majority vote, Cruz’s petition was dismissed and the IPRA law was
sustained. Hence, ancestral domains may include natural resources – somehow against the Regalian
doctrine
Examining the IPRA, there is 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, and at the same time, a
priority in their large scale development and exploitation.
Additionally, 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, which is a concept of private land title
that existed irrespective of any royal grant from the State. 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.
After deliberating on the petition, seven judges of the Supreme Court voted to dismiss the
petition, sustaining the validity of the challenged provisions or a part of them. Seven other members of
Apiado, Elyn D. | JD-2-1 LTD Case Digests

the Court voted to grant the petition. As the votes were equally divided and the necessary majority was
not obtained, the case was redeliberated upon. However, after redeliberation, the voting remained the
same. Therefore, the petition was dismissed. In a separate opinion, judge Puno analyzed the development
of the Regalian Doctrine in the Philippine Legal System, and argued that the provisions of the IPRA did
not contravene the constitution, as ancestral domains and ancestral lands were the private property of
indigenous peoples and did not constitute part of the land of the public domain.