FACTS:

Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for prohibition and mandamus as
citizens and taxpayers, assailing 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). The petitioners assail certain provisions of the
IPRA and its IRR on the ground that these amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s
ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources
therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in section 2, Article XII of the
Constitution.

ISSUE:
Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution?

HELD:
No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution. 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.
NO MAJORITY VOTE ANG SC 7-7, HENCE PETITION DISMISSED, HENCE ANCESTRAL DOMAIN MAY
INCLUDE NA. RESOURCES, SOMEHOW AGAINST REGALIAN DOCTRINE

FACTS:
This petition is for a review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA)
affirming that of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Kalibo Aklan, which granted the petition
for declaratory relief filed by respondents-claimants Mayor Jose Yap et al, and ordered the
survey of Boracay for titling purposes.
On Nov. 10, 1978, President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1801 declaring Boracay Island
as a tourist zone and marine reserve. Claiming that Proc. No. 1801 precluded them from
filing an application for a judicial confirmation of imperfect title or survey of land for titling
purposes, respondents-claimants filed a petition for declaratory relief with the RTC in
Kalibo, Aklan.
The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) opposed the petition
countering that Boracay Island was an unclassified land of the public domain. It formed part
of the mass of lands classified as “public forest,” which was not available for disposition
pursuant to section 3(a) of PD No. 705 or the Revised Forestry Code.

ISSUE:
 Whether unclassified lands of the public domain are automatically deemed agricultural
land, therefore making these lands alienable.

HELD:
No. To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, the
applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as a
presidential proclamation or an executive order, an administrative action, investigative
reports of the Bureau of Lands investigators, and a legislative act or statute.
A positive act declaring land as alienable and disposable is required. In keeping with the
presumption of state ownership, the Court has time and again emphasized that there must
be a positive act of the government, such as an official proclamation, declassifying
inalienable public land into disposable land for agricultural or other purposes.
The Regalian Doctrine dictates that all lands of the public domain belong to the State, that
the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land and charged with the
conservation of such patrimony.

All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to
belong to the State. Thus, all lands that have not been acquired from the government, either
by purchase or by grant, belong to the State as part of the inalienable public domain.
--The private claimants cannot apply for judicial confirmation of imperfect
title under Proclamation No. 1064, with respect to those lands which were
classified as agricultural lands. Private claimants failed to prove the first
element of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of
their lands in Boracay since June 12, 1945.

Arceo v. CA

G.R. No. 81401,18 May 1990

Nature: petition to review the decision of the CA

Ponente: InesLuciano, J.

Facts:

● Spouses Abdon Arceo and Escolastica Geronimo had one son, Esteban. Spouses were also the
owners of 4 parcels of unregistered land located in Pulilan, Bulacan. Abdon died in 1953,
Escolastica in 16 sept 1942 and Esteban in 2 Sept 1941. Esteban sired Jose, Pedro, Lorenzo,
Antonio and Sotera. Jose married Virginia Franco with whom he fathered 6 children and are the
petitioners of this case against Jose’s siblings.
● On October (or Sept) 27 1941, the spouses Arceo executed a deed of donation on the said
parcels of land in favor of Jose, presented in court as “exhibit J”. On 2 August 1950, the spouses
 Arceo executed another deed of donation to Jose on the same parcels of land, presented in
court as “exhibit T”. Exhibit J and T were executed inter vivos. On the other hand, on October
3(or 30) 1941 which was, “exhibit 1”, the spouses Arceo executed a deed of donation to ALL
GRANDCHILDREN including Jose, thereby revoking “exhibit J”.
● On 12 January 1972, Petitioners filed with the Cadastral Court (CC) an application for the 4 lots
under the strength of exhibits J and T. Respondents contested the petition on the strength of
exhibit 1. CC dismissed the petition and distributed the land based on intestate succession, CA
affirmed the decision CC, hence this petition.

Issue: WON the CC had no jurisdiction to decide cases on claims of ownership of property.

Ruling: No. The CC HAD jurisdiction to decide cases on claims of ownership of property.

Under Section 2 of the Property Registration Decree, the jurisdiction of the RTC, sitting as a land
registration court, is no longer as circumscribed as it was under Act No. 496, the former land registration
act. The PRD “has eliminated the distinction between the general jurisdiction vested in the RTC and the
limited jurisdiction conferred upon it by Act 497 when acting merely as a Cadastral court.” Such
amendment conferred upon the trial courts he authority to act not only on applications for ‘original
registration” but also “over all petitions filed after original registration of title, with power to hear and
determine all questions arising from such applications or petitions.”

Likewise, where the issues of ownership is ineluctably tied up with the question of right of registration,
the Cadastral Court has jurisdiction over it. Hence, decision of CA is set aside.

FACTS:
Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for prohibition and mandamus as
citizens and taxpayers, assailing 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). The petitioners assail certain provisions of the
IPRA and its IRR on the ground that these amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s
ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources
therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in section 2, Article XII of the
Constitution.

ISSUE:
Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution?

HELD:
No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution. 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.
NO MAJORITY VOTE ANG SC 7-7, HENCE PETITION DISMISSED, HENCE ANCESTRAL DOMAIN MAY
INCLUDE NA. RESOURCES, SOMEHOW AGAINST REGALIAN DOCTRINE

FACTS:
This petition is for a review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA)
affirming that of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Kalibo Aklan, which granted the petition
for declaratory relief filed by respondents-claimants Mayor Jose Yap et al, and ordered the
survey of Boracay for titling purposes.
On Nov. 10, 1978, President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1801 declaring Boracay Island
as a tourist zone and marine reserve. Claiming that Proc. No. 1801 precluded them from
filing an application for a judicial confirmation of imperfect title or survey of land for titling
purposes, respondents-claimants filed a petition for declaratory relief with the RTC in
Kalibo, Aklan.
The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) opposed the petition
countering that Boracay Island was an unclassified land of the public domain. It formed part
of the mass of lands classified as “public forest,” which was not available for disposition
pursuant to section 3(a) of PD No. 705 or the Revised Forestry Code.

ISSUE:
Whether unclassified lands of the public domain are automatically deemed agricultural
land, therefore making these lands alienable.

HELD:
No. To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, the
applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as a
presidential proclamation or an executive order, an administrative action, investigative
reports of the Bureau of Lands investigators, and a legislative act or statute.
A positive act declaring land as alienable and disposable is required. In keeping with the
presumption of state ownership, the Court has time and again emphasized that there must
be a positive act of the government, such as an official proclamation, declassifying
inalienable public land into disposable land for agricultural or other purposes.
The Regalian Doctrine dictates that all lands of the public domain belong to the State, that
the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land and charged with the
conservation of such patrimony.
All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to
belong to the State. Thus, all lands that have not been acquired from the government, either
by purchase or by grant, belong to the State as part of the inalienable public domain.
--The private claimants cannot apply for judicial confirmation of imperfect
title under Proclamation No. 1064, with respect to those lands which were
classified as agricultural lands. Private claimants failed to prove the first
element of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of
their lands in Boracay since June 12, 1945.

Arceo v. CA

G.R. No. 81401,18 May 1990

Nature: petition to review the decision of the CA

Ponente: InesLuciano, J.

Facts:

● Spouses Abdon Arceo and Escolastica Geronimo had one son, Esteban. Spouses were also the
owners of 4 parcels of unregistered land located in Pulilan, Bulacan. Abdon died in 1953,
Escolastica in 16 sept 1942 and Esteban in 2 Sept 1941. Esteban sired Jose, Pedro, Lorenzo,
Antonio and Sotera. Jose married Virginia Franco with whom he fathered 6 children and are the
petitioners of this case against Jose’s siblings.
● On October (or Sept) 27 1941, the spouses Arceo executed a deed of donation on the said
parcels of land in favor of Jose, presented in court as “exhibit J”. On 2 August 1950, the spouses
Arceo executed another deed of donation to Jose on the same parcels of land, presented in
court as “exhibit T”. Exhibit J and T were executed inter vivos. On the other hand, on October
3(or 30) 1941 which was, “exhibit 1”, the spouses Arceo executed a deed of donation to ALL
GRANDCHILDREN including Jose, thereby revoking “exhibit J”.
● On 12 January 1972, Petitioners filed with the Cadastral Court (CC) an application for the 4 lots
under the strength of exhibits J and T. Respondents contested the petition on the strength of
exhibit 1. CC dismissed the petition and distributed the land based on intestate succession, CA
affirmed the decision CC, hence this petition.

Issue: WON the CC had no jurisdiction to decide cases on claims of ownership of property.
Ruling: No. The CC HAD jurisdiction to decide cases on claims of ownership of property.

Under Section 2 of the Property Registration Decree, the jurisdiction of the RTC, sitting as a land
registration court, is no longer as circumscribed as it was under Act No. 496, the former land registration
act. The PRD “has eliminated the distinction between the general jurisdiction vested in the RTC and the
limited jurisdiction conferred upon it by Act 497 when acting merely as a Cadastral court.” Such
amendment conferred upon the trial courts he authority to act not only on applications for ‘original
registration” but also “over all petitions filed after original registration of title, with power to hear and
determine all questions arising from such applications or petitions.”

Likewise, where the issues of ownership is ineluctably tied up with the question of right of registration,
the Cadastral Court has jurisdiction over it. Hence, decision of CA is set aside.

FACTS:
Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for prohibition and mandamus as
citizens and taxpayers, assailing 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). The petitioners assail certain provisions of the
IPRA and its IRR on the ground that these amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s
ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources
therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in section 2, Article XII of the
Constitution.

ISSUE:
Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution?

HELD:
No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution. 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.
NO MAJORITY VOTE ANG SC 7-7, HENCE PETITION DISMISSED, HENCE ANCESTRAL DOMAIN MAY
INCLUDE NA. RESOURCES, SOMEHOW AGAINST REGALIAN DOCTRINE
FACTS:
This petition is for a review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA)
affirming that of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Kalibo Aklan, which granted the petition
for declaratory relief filed by respondents-claimants Mayor Jose Yap et al, and ordered the
survey of Boracay for titling purposes.
On Nov. 10, 1978, President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1801 declaring Boracay Island
as a tourist zone and marine reserve. Claiming that Proc. No. 1801 precluded them from
filing an application for a judicial confirmation of imperfect title or survey of land for titling
purposes, respondents-claimants filed a petition for declaratory relief with the RTC in
Kalibo, Aklan.
The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) opposed the petition
countering that Boracay Island was an unclassified land of the public domain. It formed part
of the mass of lands classified as “public forest,” which was not available for disposition
pursuant to section 3(a) of PD No. 705 or the Revised Forestry Code.

ISSUE:
Whether unclassified lands of the public domain are automatically deemed agricultural
land, therefore making these lands alienable.

HELD:
No. To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, the
applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as a
presidential proclamation or an executive order, an administrative action, investigative
reports of the Bureau of Lands investigators, and a legislative act or statute.
A positive act declaring land as alienable and disposable is required. In keeping with the
presumption of state ownership, the Court has time and again emphasized that there must
be a positive act of the government, such as an official proclamation, declassifying
inalienable public land into disposable land for agricultural or other purposes.
The Regalian Doctrine dictates that all lands of the public domain belong to the State, that
the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land and charged with the
conservation of such patrimony.

All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to
belong to the State. Thus, all lands that have not been acquired from the government, either
by purchase or by grant, belong to the State as part of the inalienable public domain.
--The private claimants cannot apply for judicial confirmation of imperfect
title under Proclamation No. 1064, with respect to those lands which were
classified as agricultural lands. Private claimants failed to prove the first
element of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of
their lands in Boracay since June 12, 1945.

Arceo v. CA
G.R. No. 81401,18 May 1990

Nature: petition to review the decision of the CA

Ponente: InesLuciano, J.

Facts:

● Spouses Abdon Arceo and Escolastica Geronimo had one son, Esteban. Spouses were also the
owners of 4 parcels of unregistered land located in Pulilan, Bulacan. Abdon died in 1953,
Escolastica in 16 sept 1942 and Esteban in 2 Sept 1941. Esteban sired Jose, Pedro, Lorenzo,
Antonio and Sotera. Jose married Virginia Franco with whom he fathered 6 children and are the
petitioners of this case against Jose’s siblings.
● On October (or Sept) 27 1941, the spouses Arceo executed a deed of donation on the said
parcels of land in favor of Jose, presented in court as “exhibit J”. On 2 August 1950, the spouses
Arceo executed another deed of donation to Jose on the same parcels of land, presented in
court as “exhibit T”. Exhibit J and T were executed inter vivos. On the other hand, on October
3(or 30) 1941 which was, “exhibit 1”, the spouses Arceo executed a deed of donation to ALL
GRANDCHILDREN including Jose, thereby revoking “exhibit J”.
● On 12 January 1972, Petitioners filed with the Cadastral Court (CC) an application for the 4 lots
under the strength of exhibits J and T. Respondents contested the petition on the strength of
exhibit 1. CC dismissed the petition and distributed the land based on intestate succession, CA
affirmed the decision CC, hence this petition.

Issue: WON the CC had no jurisdiction to decide cases on claims of ownership of property.

Ruling: No. The CC HAD jurisdiction to decide cases on claims of ownership of property.

Under Section 2 of the Property Registration Decree, the jurisdiction of the RTC, sitting as a land
registration court, is no longer as circumscribed as it was under Act No. 496, the former land registration
act. The PRD “has eliminated the distinction between the general jurisdiction vested in the RTC and the
limited jurisdiction conferred upon it by Act 497 when acting merely as a Cadastral court.” Such
amendment conferred upon the trial courts he authority to act not only on applications for ‘original
registration” but also “over all petitions filed after original registration of title, with power to hear and
determine all questions arising from such applications or petitions.”
Likewise, where the issues of ownership is ineluctably tied up with the question of right of registration,
the Cadastral Court has jurisdiction over it. Hence, decision of CA is set aside.