1

Republic v. Sadca

Introduction of case
Republic v. Sadca is a civil case decided in 2021. Justice Marvic Leonen penned the
decision.

Facts
Sadca Acay is a member of the Kankana-ey tribe. He applied for a free patent over a parcel of
land in Barrio Abatan, Mankayan, Benguet, which was granted. When he died, the said parcel of
land was inherited by his daughter, Rosita Sadca.

Rosita subdivided the land and subsequently sold it to other people.

In 2002, the Republic filed a complaint for cancellation of the free patent issued in favor of Acay,
claiming that the land was part of Mt. Data National Park and Forest, which makes it inalienable
land. The trial court upheld the free patent earlier issued in favor of Sadca.

Issue
The issue here is whether the free patent awarded to Acay was valid.

Ratio + Ruling

The Supreme Court upheld the grant of the free patent in favor of Acay. It is not disputed that
Acay is a member of the Kankana-ey Tribe. The Republic’s claim that Acay must have
committed fraud and misrepresentation in his application for free patent because the area
applied for was inalienable for being part of the public domain falls flat in the absence of
evidence to support its claim. Moreover, the Republic even neglected to present into evidence
the actual application form submitted by Acay to support its allegation of fraud.

Forest land is considered part of the public domain and cannot be the subject of registration
under the Torrens System, as it is beyond the power and jurisdiction of a cadastral court.
However, a recognized exception to the rule on inalienability of public land is if the forest or
mineral land has been statutorily reclassified and considered as ancestral land, openly and
continuously occupied by a member of an indigenous cultural community, based on the
Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act. It cited the case of Cariño v. Insular Government, where the
Court opined that land held under the concept of ownership even before the Spanish conquest
could not be considered to have ever been public land. The Supreme Court also recognized the
 2

difference in how our civil law views the concept of ownership vis-à-vis the indigenous cultural
community. While the Civil Code treat land as a thing that can be owned, indigenous cultural
communities have a communal view of land ownership and generally consider land, like air and
water, to be beyond the realm of commerce.

While Cariño, as an exception to the regalian doctrine, is already deeply entrenched in our laws
and jurisprudence, the recognition that indigenous cultural communities have constitutionally-
protected rights to their ancestral lands must also carry with it the recognition and respect of
their culture and beliefs.

Voting Results, if relevant

Four other justices of the Supreme Court Third Division concurred in the decision.

Doctrine / Relevance / Significance / Update