CASE DIGEST: Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources [G.R. No. 135385, 2000] –Mary Grace B.

Pacatang
FACTS:

This is a suit for prohibition and mandamus filed by petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa as
citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8371
(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. After due deliberation, the votes were equally divided (7-7), the case was
redeliberated upon but voting remained the same. Thus per Rule 56, Sec.7 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure, the petition is dismissed.

ISSUE: Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution?

HELD:

No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution. Examining the IPRA, it grants these
people the ownership and possession of their ancestral domains and ancestral lands, and defines the
extent, 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. The ownership given is the indigenous concept of
ownership under customary law which traces its origin to native title.

Further, ancestral domains and ancestral lands are private property of ICCs/IPs and do not constitute
part of the land of 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. Ownership of ancestral
domains by native title dose not entitles the ICC/IP to a Torrens title but to a Certificate of Ancestral
Domain Title (CADT). Their right of ownership and possession to their ancestral domains is held
1 under the indigenous concept of ownership which maintains the view that ancestral domains are the
ICC/IP private but community property and ownership over natural resources remains with the state
and their rights take the form of management or stewardship.

PROPERTY LAW | Atty. Ophelia Pilar Rubio-Zamora

 CASE DIGEST: Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources [G.R. No. 135385, 2000] –Mary Grace B. Pacatang

PROPERTY LAW | Atty. Ophelia Pilar Rubio-Zamora

 CASE DIGEST: Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources [G.R. No. 135385, 2000] –Mary Grace B. Pacatang

PROPERTY LAW | Atty. Ophelia Pilar Rubio-Zamora