Separate Opinion of Justice Puno in Cruz v.

Secretary of DENR

History of Philippine Land Laws

Facts:
In 1997, RA 8371 (Indigenous Peoples Rights Act/IPRA) was passed. Isagani Cruz
and Cesar Europa filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus, questioning the
constitutionality of certain provisions of IPRA: a) It allows the indigenous
people/cultural community to OWN NATURAL RESOURCES ; b) It defines ancestral
lands and ancestral domains in such a way that it may include private lands owned
by other individuals; c) It categorizes ancestral lands and domains held by native
title as never to have been public land; d) It violates due process in allowing NCIP
(National Commission on Indigenous Peoples) to take jurisdiction over IP land
disputes and making customary law apply to these. In the first deliberation of the
SC, the votes were 7‐7, so the case was re‐deliberated upon.

Issue:
Did the IPRA violate the Regalian Doctrine?
A. IPRA: Under the IPRA law, lands which have not been registered before, if
granted with a CADT/CALT, will be recognized as privately owned by the IPs
from the beginning‐ thus, has never been part of public domain.
B. Regalian Theory: Lands which has not been recognized as privately owned
belongs to the State

Held:
No Final Decision. Petition dismissed due to lack of votes; Law remained valid and
constitutional (7 to grant ‐7 to dismiss).

Justice Puno’s Separate Opinion: The IPRA Law DID NOT VIOLATE the Regalian
Theory
1. These lands claimed by the IPs have long been theirs BY VIRTUE OF
NATIVE TITLE; they have lived there even before the Spanish colonization.
“Native title refers to ICCs/IPs’ pre ‐conquest rights to lands and domains held
under a claim of private ownership as far back as memory reaches. These lands
are deemed never to have been public lands and are indisputable presumed to
have been held that way since before the Spanish Conquest.”

2. AND Native Title is an Exception to the Regalian Doctrine: ... Oh Cho vs

Director of Lands: “This exception would be any land that should have been in the
possession of an occupant and of his predecessors‐in‐interest since time
immemorial”

3. Native Titles provide a different Type of Private Ownership

“Sec. 5. Indigenous concept of ownership. ‐‐‐ Indigenous concept of ownership
sustains the view that ancestral domains and all resources found therein shall
serve as the material bases of their cultural integrity. The indigenous concept of
ownership generally holds that ancestral domains are the ICCs/IPs private
but community property which belongs to all generations and therefore
cannot be sold, disposed or destroyed. It likewise covers sustainable
traditional resource rights.”

4. It complies with Regalian Doctrine: Natural Sources within ancestral

domains are not owned by the IPs
* The IPs claims are limited to “lands, bodies of water traditionally and
actually occupied by ICCs/IPs, sacred places, traditional hunting and
fishing grounds, and all improvements made by them at any time within the
domains;”
* IPRA did not mention that the IPs also own all the other natural resources found
within the ancestral domains

Discussion related to the topic of the Torrens System and Mode of

Acquiring Ownership (land):
I. HISTORY ON THE MODE OF ACQUIRING LAND OWNERSHIP IN THE
PHILIPPINES:
A. Laws of the Indies
“The Regalian Theory is a Western legal concept first introduced by the Spaniards
into the country through the Laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas.”
 By virtue of Spain’s "discovery" and conquest of the Philippines, its lands
became the exclusive patrimony and dominion of the Spanish Crown
 Back then, the Spanish Government distributed the lands by issuing royal
grants and concessions to Spaniards, both military and civilian

B. Valenton‐vs‐Murciano Case (1904, American Regime)

 Long‐time occupation will not necessarily lead to ownership of the land
 "While the State has always recognized the right of the occupant to a deed if
he proves a possession for a sufficient length of time, yet it has always
insisted that he must make that proof before the proper
administrative officers, and obtain from them his deed, and until he
did that the State remained the absolute owner."

C. The Public Land Acts and the Torrens System

1903: 1st Public Land Act (Act No. 926)
3⁄4 Provides rules and regulations for the homesteading, selling, and leasing
of portions of the public domain of the
Philippine Islands

1919: 2nd Public Land Act (Act 2874)

3⁄4 more comprehensive but limited the exploitation of agricultural lands to
Filipinos, Americans and citizens of other countries which gave Filipinos the
same privileges
 1936: Present Public Land Law (Commonwealth Act No. 141)
3⁄4 Almost the same as Act 2874, except that it gave the Filipino citizens and
corporations which were previously only granted to Americans

**1903: Land Registration Law (Act 496)

3⁄4 It placed all public and private lands in the Philippines under the Torrens
system
3⁄4 almost a verbatim copy of the Massachussetts Land Registration Act of
1898

II. TORRENS SYSTEM

Origin: Patterned after the Merchant Shipping Acts in South Australia by Sir
Robert Torrens
Government’s Role:
The government must issue an official certificate of title attesting to the fact that
the person named is the owner of the property described therein, subject to such
liens and encumbrances as thereon noted or the law warrants or reserves
Certificate of Title: The certificate of title is indefeasible and imprescriptible and
all claims to the parcel of land are quieted upon issuance of said certificate.

III. REGALIAN DOCTRINE

 Despite of several legal developments on land distribution, the Regalian
doctrine is still retained in our Constitution.
 Under this concept, all lands of the public domain as well as all natural
resources enumerated therein, whether on public or private land, belong to
the State.