HEIRS OF MADIO V.

HEIRS OF LEUNG
G.R. NO. 169161, AUGUST 17, 2007
FACTS:
On September 9, 1960, Lot No. 8, located in P. Burgos Subdivision, Baguio City
was awarded to Leung as the winning bidder in an auction sale thereof pursuant to his Townsite
Sales Application.
On July 29, 1964, Miguel Madio filed a protest for the cancellation of the Order of Award
in question on the following grounds: (1) They are the claimants of Lot 8, having been in actual,
continuous, open and adverse occupation of the same since 1947;(2) Leung failed to comply with
specific requirements under the award; i.e., he did not introduce any improvement on the lot
since the award was made to him on September 9, 1960;(3) They were never notified previously
that Lot 8 was the subject of public bidding and that the same was awarded to Leung;(4)They
have already built their houses on Lot 8 and made improvements thereon; and (5) Under
Republic Act No. 730, they are entitled to acquire the property.
On October 3, 1974, the Director of Lands informed Madio that his petition could not be
given due course because the controversy over the award of Lot No. 8 to Leung had already been
resolved in the order dated July 13, 1967 of the Regional Director in Dagupan City. However, the
DENR OIC-Secretary invalidated the award and decreed that said lot 8 be sold to Madio instead.
Aggrieved, Leung elevated the case to the Office of the President (OP). However, his appeal was
dismissed in a resolution dated March 12, 1998 on the ground that the memorandum was not
filed on time.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Office of the President erred in dismissing Leung’s appeal
HELD:
The Supreme Court held that the OP erred in dismissing the case. The finding of
the Court of Appeals that the memorandum was indeed filed on time as shown by the evidence
presented is conclusive. Petitioners file copies of said documents clearly bear stamp markings
indicating receipt by the OP Legal Office. But assuming that the necessary documents were
indeed not filed, the imperatives of fair play would have impelled the OP to ask for an
explanation, instead of proceeding with its outright dismissal action based on technicality, given
that Leung’s case appears to be prima facie meritorious. In this regard, the court quotes with
approval what the CA said: At any rate, assuming that the documents in question were not filed
together with the motion for reconsideration, possibly due to oversight or inadvertence, the OP
would have done well to require the submission of the omitted attachments, instead of out rightly
denying petitioners motion for reconsideration. Indeed, judicial action by a party-litigant must be
given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his complaint or defense rather than for
him to lose life, liberty, honor or property on technicalities.
LAMSIS, ET. AL. V. DONG-E
G.R. NO. 173021, OCTOBER 20, 2010
FACTS:
This case involves a conflict of ownership and possession over an untitled parcel of land located
along Km. 5 Asin Road, Baguio City. While petitioners are the actual occupants of Lot No. 1, respondent
is claiming ownership thereof and is seeking to recover its possession from petitioners. According to
respondent Margarita Semon Dong-E (Margarita), her familys ownership and occupation of Lot No. 1
can be traced as far back as 1922 to her late grandfather, Ap-ap. Upon Ap-aps death, the property was
inherited by his children, who obtained a survey plan in 1964 of the 186,090-square meter property,
which included Lot No. 1.
The heirs of Ap-ap then executed, for a P500.00 consideration, a Deed of Quitclaim on February
26, 1964 in favor of their brother Gilbert Semon (Margaritas father). Sometime between 1976 and 1978,
Gilbert Semon together with his wife Mary Lamsis, allowed his in-laws Manolo Lamsis and Nancy
Lamsis-Kitma, to stay on a portion of Lot No. 1 together with their respective families. When Gilbert

COLLADO. As a rule. 2002 FACTS: Edna Collado and co.The third element is missing. even assuming arguendo that petitioners theory about the effect of IPRA is correct (a matter which need not be decided here). They obviously neglected to take the IPRA into consideration. his children extrajudicially partitioned the property among themselves and allotted Lot No. it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time. BOCKASANJO. Thus. Settled is the rule that forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. the IPRA was already in effect but the petitioners never raised the same as a ground for dismissal.The state of affairs changed when petitioners Delfin and Agustin allegedly began expanding their occupation on the subject property and selling portions thereof. ET. ISSUE: 1. An exception to this rule has been carved by jurisprudence. regardless of which party is successful. the Court ruled that the existence of laches will prevent a party from raising the courts lack of jurisdiction. for any judgment in the certification case would not constitute res judicata or be conclusive on the ownership issue involved in the reivindicatory case. it will not constitute litis pendentia on a reivindicatory case where the issue is ownership. For litis pendentia to be a ground for the dismissal of an action. Margarita filed a complaint for recovery of ownership. NO. (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for. Moreover. Since there is no litis pendentia. 1 to petitioner Maynard Mondiguing (Maynard) while Agustin sold another portion to petitioner Jose Valdez (Jose). and (c) the identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases is such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case. 1 thereof in favor of Margarita. Whether the ancestral land claim pending before the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) should take precedence over the reivindicatory action 2. would amount to res judicata in the other case. acting favorably on her and her siblings ancestral land claim over a portion of the 186. G. they are already barred by laches from raising their jurisdictional objection under the circumstances.applicants filed with the land registration court for an application for registration of a parcel of land about 120 hectares.At the time that the complaint was first filed in 1998. 1 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City. OCTOBER 4.Semon died in 1983. instead they filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the value of the property did not meet the jurisdictional value for the RTC. could or should have been done earlier.R. V.[16] Delfin allegedly sold a 400-square meter portion of Lot No. the relief being founded on the same facts. hence. the following requisites must concur: (a) identity of parties. The Court held that a registration proceeding (such as the certification of ancestral lands) is not a conclusive adjudication of ownership. 107764. there is no reason for the reivindicatory case to be suspended or dismissed in favor of the certification case. warranting the presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it. To bolster her claim of ownership and possession. by exercising due diligence. AL. ETC. for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time..090-square meter property. to do that which. Margarita introduced as evidence an unnumbered resolution of the Community Special Task Force on Ancestral Lands (CSTFAL) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Laches is defined as the failure or neglect. Attached to the . since there is no litis pendentia. possession. reconveyance and damages against all four occupants of Lot No. 2. Whether the trial court has jurisdiction to decide the case in light of the effectivity of RA 8371 or the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 at the time that the complaint was instituted HELD: 1. an objection over subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time of the proceedings. we cannot agree with petitioners contention that respondent committed forum-shopping. or at least such parties who represent the same interests in both actions.

Inc. Bockasanjo ISF Awardes Association. and Regalian Doctrine.application was the technical description of the lot signed by the Bureau of Lands. 129. even the survey they petitioners presented stated that the lot is within the MWR... does not have a registrable title over the lot. Firstly because since 1904. Petitioners also alleged that there have been nine transfers of rights since then and that there are twenty-five coowners. unless the occupant can prove possession and occupation of the same under claim of ownership for the required number of years to constitute a grant from the State. EO 33 established the Marikina Watershed Reservation (MWR) in Rizal. was only in possession of the lot for 2 years prior the issuance of EO 33. however long the period may have extended. ISSUE: Whether or not Collado et al. The application included a survey which stated that the lot is inside IN-2 Marikina Watershed. the land registration court issued an order of general default against the whole world with the exception of the oppositors. the lots within the MWR remain to this day as inalienable properties of the State. notorious and in the concept of owners and that they have declared the lot for taxation purposes and have paid all the corresponding real estate taxes. 67 of the Water Code if the Philippines (PD 1607). This is bereft of merit because mere possession by private individuals of lands does not create the legal presumption that the lands are alienable and disposable because Regalian Doctrine dictates that. there had been no clear showing that the lot had been previously classified as alienable and disposable. notorious and continuous possession in the concept of owner since 1902. The petitioner cannot use the saving clause in EO 33 because they don’t have documentary title over the lot and that they have failed to acquire a valid enforceable right or title because of the failure to complete the required period of possession whether under CA 141 or under any of its amendments because their predecessor-in-interest. The Republic through the Solicitor General filed its opposition to the application of Collado et al.. Republic appealed to the Court of Appeals for annulment of the decision on the ground that pursuant to section 9(2) of BP Blg. if any there be. filed with Court of Appeals their intervention stating that the lot in dispute is alienable and alleged that they are the actual occupants of the Lot pursuant to the certificates of stewardship issued by the DENR under the ISF tree planting purposes.. have a registrable title over the lot HELD: Supreme Court ruled that Collado et al. public. in the course of the hearing before the Land Registration Court. However. never confers title thereto upon the possessor because the statute of limitations with regard to public land does not operate against the State. the Republic failed to appear despite notices. . as there are no other oppositors. A watershed reservation is a natural resource and because of its importance and following the provisions Art. The petitioners alleged that their possession have been open. The possession of public land. based on the evidence and testimonies presented by Collado et al. Sesinado Leyva. Period of occupancy after EO 33 could no longer be counted because it was then inalienable. An order was issued the Land Regulation Authority to issue corresponding decree of registration in favor of the petitioners.. all lands not otherwise appearing clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. The contention of the petitioners was that the EO 33 contained a saving clause that the reservation was subject to private rights. The Land Registration Court. Petitioners trace their possession from Sesinado Leyva who was in open. ruled in favor of petitioners.

Pres. LBP V. Meanwhile. the Solicitor General moved for the dismissal of the expropriation case. Swampy areas covered by mangrove trees. subject to private rights. On June 21. After nine years from the commencement of the expropriation proceedings. only 75 Certificate of Land Titles were distributed. The tenants of Doronilla applied for Certificate of Land Transfer.312 hectares. 131. In 1983. The classification is descriptive of its legal nature or status and does not have to be descriptive of what the land actually looks like. the survey of the property of Doronilla was stopped. which carved out a wide expanse from the Watershed Reservation in Rizal. Pres. subject to private rights. Marcos issued Proclamation No. the lot remains inalienable. 1637. in 1979. 1637. . FEBRUARY 8. also known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. Araneta filed at the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board against DAR and LBP for cancellation of compulsory coverage under Presidential Decree 27 and exemption from Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law coverage with regards to his property. it is of no moment if the areas of the MWR are now fairly populated and vibrant communities as claimed by petitioners because a a forested areas classified as forest land of the public domain does not lose such classification simply because loggers or settler may have stripped if of its forest cover. also known as Tenants Emancipation Decree. NO. G. the Solicitor General filed with the CFI of Rizal an expropriation complaint against the property of Doronilla. Presidential Decree No. Parcels of land classified as forest land may actually be covered with grass and planted with crops by kaingin cultivators or other farmers. was issued. Araneta wrote the Department of Agrarian Reform Secretary to convert his lot from agricultural to commercial and industrial but it was not acted upon. 27. ETC. 1974. 2012 FACTS: At the heart of the controversy is a large tract of land with an area of 1. Due to Proclamation No. and reserving the segregated area for Townsite purposes. Pres. being a part of Townsite Reservation. was enacted. Unless and until the land classifies as “forest” is released on an official proclamation to that effect to that it may form part of the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain the rules on confirmation of imperfect title do not apply. Doronilla issued a Certification listing 79 bona fide planters. 1283.. The Department of Agrarian Reform processed the applications of 106 Certificate of Land Transfer covering 73 hectares of the property of Doronilla. In 1978. nipa palms and other trees growing in brackish or sea water may also be classified as forest land. The petitioners were not able to present any evidence that the subject lot was released from the MWR to form part of the alienable and disposable public land. also known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.645 hectares. Prior to the issuance of the Townsite Proclamations. 912 farmer beneficiaries were issued Emancipation Patents and Transfer Certificate of Titles. However. 6657. He protested claiming that the property is not covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. which increased the size of the Townsite Reservation by 20. ARANETA. The Department of Agrarian Reform undertook to place under Operation Land Transfer Program all tenanted rice and corn lands. Republic Act No. The Office of the Provincial Adjudication Board instead scheduled a hearing to determine just compensation.R. Finally. The Land Bank of the Philippines paid three million as just compensation and notified Araneta of its entitlement. Forest lands do not have to be on mountains or out of the way places. Araneta acquired the property of Doronilla through court litigation. Corazon Aquino issued Proclamation No. Ferdinand Marcos issued Proclamation No. 161796. In 1990.Absent any positive Act of the government declaring a parcel of land to be alienable and disposable or re-classifying an inalienable lot to be alienable. In 1977. which was originally registered in the name of Alfonso Doronilla.

forest. Thus Ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not part of the lands of the public domain. the petition was dismissed. As majority was not obtained. thus. 1283 shall be declared valid but those subsequently issued are nullified. 2000 FACTS: Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa brought a suit of prohibition and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of R. private rights belonged to them. It ceased to be agricultural land upon approval of its inclusion in the Townsite Reservation. The provisions of R. Thus ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not part of the lands of the public domain. Several groups such as Haribon ET. pursuant to the Rules of Court. 7 and 8 and sections 57 and 58. they have lived there even since time immemorial. the voting remained. being contrary to the regalia Doctrine. CARL shall cover all public and private agricultural lands. thereby excluded from Compulsory Agrarian Reform Coverage HELD: The Court held that the lot of Araneta is excluded from compulsory acquisition except the 75 Certificate of Land Titles issued prior to Proclamation No. 6657 apply only to agricultural lands under which category. Kapunan.A 8371 also known as Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA). The ICCs/IPs has long been in possession of the lands they occupy. The case went to Court of Appeals via Petition for Review and it ruled in favour of Araneta. and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). HELD: The Court was divided equally. during the period material. Petitioners aver that provisions of RA 83171 in sections of IPRA particularly the sections 3(a) and 3(b). The 75 Certificate of Land Titles issued prior to Proclamation No. commercial. ISSUE: Whether or not the lot of Araneta is entirely outside the ambit of the Tenant Emancipation Decree and Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. His separate opinion started by showing the history of land ownership and how it came to these days Torrens system. having been effectively classified as non-agricultural under Proclamation No.R. the case was redeliberated upon. They also assailed the provisions of RA 8371 defining the powers and jurisdiction of the NCIP on the ground that the provisions violate the due process clause of the Constitution. Indeed. Vitug. 1637. Al. 1283. They are private and belong to the ICCs/IPs. CRUZ V. or industrial land. Before Proclamation No. The Regional Adjudicator dismissed the complaint of Araneta which was affirmed at the DARAB proper. 135385. where 7 members voted for the dismissal and the other 7 voting for the grant of petition. DECEMBER 6. there were already P. residential. NO. SEPARATE OPINION BY JUSTICE PUNO Justice Puno voted to uphold the constitutionality of the Indigenous Peoples Righrs Act of 1997. RA8137 does not violate the Regalian Doctrine. Agricultural lands are those which are arable. 27 tenant farmers in the said property.DARAB turned over the case to PARAD. no longer falls. even before the Spaniards (who introduced the concept of jura regalia) came. lands not devoted to agricultural activity are outside the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. ISSUE: Whether or not the assailed sections of the IPRA law are unconstitutional.A. Mendoza and Panganiban to look upon how the issue was addressed in their opinions.D. However after such redeliberation. Thus we look upon the separate opinions made by Justices Puno. Sec 3 Art XII of . In a very real sense. SENR G. and CHR filed motion to intervene which was granted by the court. the property of Araneta. It is referred to as lands devoted to agricultural activity and not classified as mineral. They are private and belong to the ICCs/IPs. 1637 was issued. section 6.

d) national parks. It is private simply because it is not part of public domain. Sec. ancestral domains and natural resources are unconstitutional. and conservation measures in the ancestral domain. in his view. it violates the regalia doctrine. The right to negotiate terms and conditions over the natural resources covers only their exploration which must be for the purpose of ensuring ecological and environmental protection of. it is this Court’s duty to acknowledge the presence of indigenous and customary laws in the country and affirm their co-existence with the land laws in our national system. Ownership is the crux of the issue of whether the provisions of IPRA pertaining to ancestral lands. are in totality. if not an unacceptable abdication of Sate authority over a significant area of the country and its patrimony thus . to the domain. Justice Puno in his conclusion said that “…. IPRA effectively withdraws from the public domain so-called ancestral domains covering literally millions of hectares. past present and future. The right of ownership and possession of the ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains is held under indigenous concept of ownership. and. Thus communal rights to the land are held not only by the present possessors of the land but extend to all generation of the ICCs/IPs. In his opinion he emphasizes that the collective will of the people expressed in the Constitution cannot be overridden. c) mineral lands. This concept maintains the view that ancestral domains are the ICCs/IPs private but community property. and . Ownership over the natural resources in the ancestral domains remains with the State and the ICCs/IPs are merely granted the right to “manage and conserve” them for future generations. It is not then for court ruling or any piece of legislation to be conformed to by the fundamental law. Further the interpretation of these provisions should take into account the purposes of the law.the 1987 Constitution classifies lands of the public domain into: a) agricultural. which is to give life to the constitutional mandate that the rights of the rights of the indigenous peoples should be recognized and protected. The 1987 Constitution mandates the state to “protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands” and that “Congress provide for the applicability of customary laws x x x in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domain. but it is for the former to adapt to the latter. “benefit and share” the profits from their allocation and utilization and “negotiate the terms and conditions for their exploration” for the purpose of “enduring ecological and environmental protection and conservation measures”. Examining IPRA there is nothing the law that grants to the ICCs/IPs ownership over the natural resources within their ancestral domains. stand inviolate. beyond the context of the fundamental law and virtually amount to an undue delegation. b) forest or timber. Justice Vitug held in view that the provisions of IPRA. The right of ICCs/IPs ownership in their ancestral domains includes ownership. but this “ownership: is expressly defined and limited in Sec 7 (a). The notion of community property would comprehend not only matters of proprietary interest but also forms of governance over the curved-out territory. It does not extend to exploitation and development of natural resources. Petitioners posit that IPRA deprives the State of its ownership over mineral lands of the public domain and other natural resources. and it is the sovereign act that must. between them.” It is the recognition of the ICCs/IPs distinct rights of ownership over their ancestral lands that breathe life into this constitutional provision. SEPARATE OPINION JUSTICE KAPUNAN Justice Kapunan opined that the challenged provisions of IPRA must be construed in view of such presumption of constitutionality. much less corporate condominium rights. The communal right is not the same as corporate rights over real property. Sec 3(a) of IPRA merely defines the coverage of ancestral domain. It is in them that the sovereignty resides and from them that all government authority emanates. The spirit of the IPRA lies in the distinct concept of ancestral domains and ancestral lands.” SEPARATE OPINION BY JUSTICE VITUG Justice Vitug voted to grant the petition of Isagani Cruz assailing the constitutionality of the RA 8371. If the Filipinos as a whole are to participate fully in the task of continuing democratization. To classify them as public lands under any of the four classes will render the enter IPRA law a nullity. 5 of the same Art XII mentions ancestral lands and domains but it does not classify them under any of the said four categories. The IPRA addresses the major problem of the ICCs/IPs which is loss of land.

Presidential Decree No. “ are owned by the State” and “Shall not be alienated”. worse grants rights of ownership over “lands of the public domain. unlike non ICCs/IPs who may do so only for a period not exceeding 25 years. x x x and other natural resources” which under sec 2 of Article XII of the Constitution . SEPARATE OPINION JUSTICE MENDOZA The separate opinion was focused on whether petitioners had legal standing in the petition. by mere definitions they could covers vast tract of the nation’s territory. Under Sec 3 (a) ancestral domains encompass the natural resources found therein and section 7 guarantees recognition and protection of their rights of ownership and possession over such domains. benefit from and share in the profits from the allocation and the utilization therof. Sr. royalties shall be paid to them by the parties to the mining contract. and 2) it defeats. Consistent with the Constitution. ET. THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF BAGUIO. And they may exercise such right without any time limit. the rights of ICCs/IPs to exploit. without the required building permits and in violation of Section 69 of Presidential Decree No. Alexander Ampaguey. Braulio D. the corresponding demolition advices dated September 19. V. MASWENG. 180206. renewable for a like period. Its purpose is definitional and not declarative of a right or title. AL. as natural resources found within their territories are concerned. There is nothing in the assailed law which implies an automatic or mechanical character in the grant of concessions. RA 8371 abdicates the State duty ti take full control and supervision of natural resources. development and utilization of natural resources. such as the Small-Scale Mining Act of 1991 (RA 7942) RA 7942 declares that no ancestral land shall be opened for mining operations without prior consent if he indigenous cultural community concerned and in the event the members of such indigenous cultural community give their consent to mining operations within their ancestral land. Baguio City. It must be emphasized that the grant of said priority rights to indigenous peoples is not a blanket authority to disregard pertinent laws and regulations. Yaranon. Nor does the law negate the exercise of sound discretion by government entities. RA 8371 speaks of no area or term limits to ancestral lands and domains. FEBRUARY 4. 1096 and Republic Act No. they may develop and manage the natural resources.R. The provisions of the IPRA pertaining to the utilization of natural resources are not unconstitutional. He also opined that there is no genuine controversy in the matter before the court and that the presumption of constitutionality must be accorded to IPRA until an actual case is brought to test the constitutionality of the IPRA. as amended. insofar. waters. SEPARATE OPINION JUSTICE PANGANIBAN Justice Panganiban opined that RA 8371 violates and contravenes the constitution insofar as : 1) it recognizes or. The IPRA is not intended to bestow ownership over the natural resources to the indigenous peoples is also clear from the bicameral conference committee on section 7 which recites the rights of indigenous peoples over their ancestral domains. which.describes the extent. dilutes or lessens the authority of the state to oversee the “exploration. G. Basatan on a portion of the Busol Watershed Reservation located at Aurora Hill. NO. and a certain Mr. 2006 were issued informing the occupants thereon of the intended . ETC.. Pursuant thereto.” which the Constitution expressly requires to “be under the full control and supervision of the State”. 2009 FACTS: The case stemmed from the three (3) Demolition Orders issued by the City Mayor of Baguio City. 705. In fact. Pursuant to their rights of ownership and possession. 7279. they had none. It relinquishes constitutional power of full control in favor of ICCs/IPs. ordering the demolition of the illegal structures constructed by Lazaro Bawas. limit and composition of ancestral domain by setting forth standards and guidelines in determining whether the particular area is within the ancestral domains. develop and utilize natural resources must also be limited to such period. The rights given to the indigenous peoples regarding the exploitation of natural resources under sections 7(b) and 57 of IPRA amplify what has been granted to them under existing laws.

the NCIP issued the other assailed Resolution dated November 10. contended that the demolition of their residential houses is a violation of their right of possession and ownership of ancestral lands accorded by the Constitution and the law. 33. among others. that their ownership thereof have been expressly recognized in Proclamation No. thus. Masweng of the NCIP issued the two (2) assailed temporary restraining orders (TRO) directing the petitioners and all persons acting for and in their behalf to refrain from enforcing Demolition Advice dated September 18. Regional Hearing Office. Series of 2004. Series of 2005. This claim of ownership is an exception to the government’s contention that the whole area is a forest reservation. Cordillera Administrative Region (NCIP-CAR). Proclamation No. Reynaldo Bautista. 15 dated April 27. private respondents aver that the Busol Forest Reservation is subject to ancestral land claims. for a total period of twenty (20) days. 2006 granting the private respondents’ application for preliminary injunction subject to the posting of an injunctive bond each in the amount of P10. In order to fully effectuate its mandate. Elvin Gumangan. 15 dated April 27. docketed as Case No. Demolition Order No.00. Narciso Basatan and Lazaro Bawas (hereinafter private respondents) filed a petition for injunction with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction against the Office of the City Mayor of Baguio City through its Acting City Mayor. 28. which declared the area a forest reserve. Whether Respondents have the right to claim over the property HELD: The Court held that the NCIP is the primary government agency responsible for the formulation and implementation of policies. Demolition Order No.demolition of the erected structures on October 17 to 20. Also. ISSUE: 1. 25. and Demolition Order No. plans and programs to protect and promote the rights and well-being of indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs) and the recognition of their ancestral domains as well as their rights thereto. Consequently. Benguet. 000. . (collectively called petitioners) before the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples. 1922 and recommended by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) for exclusion from the coverage of the Busol Forest Reserve. allegedly did not nullify the vested rights of private respondents over their ancestral lands and even identified the claimants of the particular portions within the forest reserve. and the Public Order and Safety Division. perforce. Demolition Order dated September 19. In fact. Subsequently. 2006. private respondents basically claimed that the lands where their residential houses stand are their ancestral lands which they have been occupying and possessing openly and continuously since time immemorial. the NCIP is vested with jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving the rights of ICCs/IPs. 2006. 31CAR-06. the City Building and Architecture Office. 2006. Series of 2004. They. La Trinidad. the Anti-Squatting Task Force. Brain S. 1922. Regional Hearing Officer Atty. must be restrained. The only condition precedent to the NCIP’s assumption of jurisdiction over such disputes is that the parties thereto shall have exhausted all remedies provided under their customary laws and have obtained a certification from the Council of Elders/Leaders who participated in the attempt to settle the dispute that the same has not been resolved. Whether or not NCIP has jurisdiction to issue has the authority to issue temporary restraining orders and writs of injunction 2. In their petition.

Cases affecting property rights. c. any person or community as provided for under Section 54 of R. Cases involving violations of the requirement of free and prior and informed consent of ICCs/IPs. between and among ICCs/IPs that have not been settled under customary laws. hereditary succession. Petition for cancellation of Certificate of Ancestral Domain Titles/Certificate of Ancestral Land Titles (CADTs/CALTs) alleged to have been fraudulently acquired by. or rituals. b. Practice and Procedure before the NCIP. sacred places.A. 2003. and settlement of land disputes. Jurisdiction of the NCIP.A.A. 5. (2) Original Jurisdiction of the Regional Hearing Officer: a. reiterates the jurisdiction of the NCIP over claims and disputes involving ancestral lands and enumerates the actions that may be brought before the commission. 1-03 dated April 9. Such other cases analogous to the foregoing. squarely qualify it as a "dispute(s) or controversy(s) over ancestral lands/domains of ICCs/IPs" within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the NCIP-RHO. d. known as the Rules on Pleadings. NCIP Administrative Circular No. Sec. since based on the allegations of the respondents. enforcement. Actions for redemption/reconveyance under Section 8(b) of R. Rule III thereof provides: Sec. 8371. and interpretation of R.—The NCIP through its Regional Hearing Offices shall exercise jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs and all cases pertaining to the implementation. 8371. which axiomatically determine the nature of the action and the jurisdiction of a particular tribunal. and e. 8371. Actions for enforcement of decisions of ICCs/IPs involving violations of customary laws or desecration of ceremonial sites. and b. Cases involving disputes and controversies over ancestral lands/domains of ICCs/IPs. (3) Exclusive and Original Jurisdiction of the Commission: a. .In addition. they are members of the Ibaloi tribe who first settled in Baguio City claiming ownership of the property subject of the case as an ancestral land clearly then. Actions for damages arising out of any violation of Republic Act No. Provided that such action is filed within one (1) year from the date of registration. 5. claims of ownership. including but not limited to the following: (1) Original and Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Regional Hearing Office (RHO): a. 8371. Therefore. the allegations in the petition. and issued to.

seeking to stop the implementation of Presidential Proclamation 310 and have it declared unconstitutional. Proclamation No. Island of Luzon. we are not convinced that private respondents are entitled to the relief granted by the Commission. In 1958.Proclamation No. reserving 3. although the NCIP has the authority to issue temporary restraining orders and writs of injunction.The declaration of the Busol Forest Reservation as such precludes its conversion into private property. however. Mountain Province. In fact. and 0-162.080 hectares of those lands under Original Certificates of Title (OCTs) 0-160. All told. 184869. too. the President issued Presidential Proclamation 476. Meanwhile. Chairperson and Commissioner of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP). On April 3. as claimants of a portion of the Busol Forest Reservation but does not acknowledge vested rights over the same. Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. that the Busol Forest Reservation was declared by the Court as inalienable in Heirs of Gumangan v. It provides that pursuant to the provisions of section eighteen hundred and twenty-six of Act Numbered Twenty-seven Hundred and eleven [. Forty-five years later. the protection of the water supply being of primary importance and all other uses of the forest are to be subordinated to that purpose. CENTRAL MINDANAO UNIVERSITY V. CMU obtained title in its name over 3. et al) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malaybalay City (Branch 9).. Bukidnon. NCIP. 2010 FACTS: Petitioner Central Mindanao University (CMU) is a chartered educational institution owned and run by the State. the predecessors-in-interest of private respondents. 2003. The proclamation merely identifies the Molintas and Gumangan families. as school site for CMU.R. however. ET. Bukidnon.] I hereby establish the Busol Forest Reservation to be administered by the Bureau of Forestry for the purpose of conserving and protecting water and timber. THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY. does not appear to be a definitive recognition of private respondents’ ancestral land claim. NO. Eventually. 15 explicitly withdraws the Busol Forest Reservation from sale or settlement. the courts are not endowed with jurisdictional competence to adjudicate forest lands. City of Baguio. Court of Appeals. and Lead Convenor of the National Anti-Poverty Commission (collectively. SEPTEMBER 21. 0-161. the government distributed more than 300 hectares of the remaining untitled lands to several tribes belonging to the area’s cultural communities. . Maramag. AL. 15. I therefore withdraw from sale or settlement the following described parcels of the public domain situated in the Township of La Trinidad.401 hectares of lands of the public domain in Musuan. Relatedly. to wit: The fact remains. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Presidential Proclamation 310 that takes 670 hectares from CMU’s registered lands for distribution to indigenous peoples and cultural communities in Barangay Musuan. G. CMU filed a petition for prohibition against respondents Executive Secretary.

NO.. when Congress enacted the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) or Republic Act 8371 in 1997. JULY 20. and proceeded to hear CMU’s application for preliminary injunction. the RTC ruled that Presidential Proclamation 310 was constitutional. 2003. Marang. the RTC issued a resolution granting NCIP. On October 27. Alcantara was allowed to lease Nine Hundred Twenty-Three (923) hectares of public forest land at Sitio Lanton. being a valid State act. It did not matter that it was President Arroyo who. after hearing the preliminary injunction incident. COMMISSION ON THE SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS. et al’s motion for partial reconsideration and dismissed CMU’s action for lack of jurisdiction. in this case. et al moved for partial reconsideration of the RTC’s order denying their motion to dismiss. G. However. Under said FLGLA. 2004. The Malaybalay RTC denied the motion. the CA dismissed the case ruling that CMU’s recourse should have been a petition for review on certiorari filed directly with this Court. respondents NCIP. because it raised pure questions law—bearing mainly on the constitutionality of Presidential Proclamation 310. AL. ISSUE: Whether or not PD 310 can validly distribute lands already owned by CMU to the ICCs/IPs in Musuan. jurisdiction lies with the Manila RTC. General Santos City for grazing purposes for a . The RTC said that the ultimate owner of the lands is the State and that CMU merely held the same in its behalf. They have ceased to be alienable public lands. The CA added that whether the trial court can decide the merits of the case based solely on the hearings of the motion to dismiss and the application for injunction is also a pure question of law. This prompted CMU to appeal the RTC’s dismissal order to the Court of Appeals (CA) Mindanao Station. these state colleges and universities are the main vehicles for our scientific and technological advancement in the field of agriculture. growth and development of this country. attempted by proclamation to appropriate the lands for distribution to indigenous peoples and cultural communities. Bukidnon HELD: No. it provided in Section 56 that "property rights within the ancestral domains already existing and/or vested" upon its effectivity "shall be recognized and respected. the lands by their character have become inalienable from the moment President Garcia dedicated them for CMU’s use in scientific and technological research in the field of agriculture. however. so vital to the existence. Meanwhile. As already stated. 2001 FACTS: Sometime in 1993. Besides. CMU filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution but the RTC denied the same on April 19.The NCIP. ET. ownership over the subject lands had been vested in CMU as early as 1958. transferring the lands in 2003 to the indigenous peoples around the area is not in accord with the IPRA." In this case. pointing out that since the act sought to be enjoined relates to an official act of the Executive Department done in Manila. et al moved to dismiss the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Malaybalay RTC over the action. Still. petitioner Nicasio Alcantara was granted Forest Land Grazing Lease Agreement by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Consequently. ALCANTARA V. Barrio Apopong. 14583.R.

provides in Section 3. However. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that the active participation of a respondent in the case pending against him before a court or a quasi-judicial body is tantamount to a recognition of that courts or body’s recognition and a willingness to abide by the resolution of the case and will bar said party from later on impugning the courts or bodys jurisdiction Moreover. 561 creating the COSLAP. Petitioner claimed that the case should have been filed with the DENR since it is the latter which has jurisdiction to administer and dispose of public lands. a Motion for Reconsideration of the COSLAPs decision and a Supplement to Respondents Motion for Reconsideration. since the dispute involved a claim for recovery of ancestral land. the law then prevailing when private respondents filed their complaint for cancellation of FLGLA No. Notwithstanding petitioner’s objection to the COSLAPs exercise of jurisdiction over the case.period of twenty-five (25) years to expire on 31 December 2018. The resolution. including grazing lands. said body continued the hearings thereon. The case was docketed as COSLAP Case No. 98-052. order or decision shall become final and executory within thirty (30) days from its promulgation and shall be appealable by certiorari only to the Supreme Court. Executive Order No. order or decision of the Commission on any of the foregoing cases shall have the force and effect of a regular administrative resolution. 542. order or decision and shall be binding upon the parties therein and upon the agency having jurisdiction over the same. 542 and the reversion of the entire 923 hectares to the Blaan and Maguindanaoan tribes. . The Commission shall promulgate such rules of procedure as will insure expeditious resolution and action on the above cases. private respondent Rolando Paglangan together with Esmael Sabel and Lasid Acop filed a letter-complaint with the Commission on Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP) seeking the cancellation of FLGLA No. Said resolution. Petitioner filed his Answer questioning the jurisdiction of the COSLAP over the case. ISSUE: Whether or not the Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems has jurisdiction over the case HELD: The Court held that petitioner is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the COSLAP since he participated actively in the proceedings before said body by filing an Answer. paragraph 2(a) thereof that said Commission may assume jurisdiction over land disputes involving occupants of the land in question and pasture lease agreement holders.

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS Atty." SAINT LOU IS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW OCTOBER 6. Jerico G. 2015 . Gay-ya "We envision Saint Louis University as an excellent missionary and transformative educational institution zealous in developing human resources imbued with the Christian Spirit and who are creative. competent and socially involved.

Yapit. Jaylord Q. Dawn April G. Clyde Ciddrick S. Lumbas. Berto D. Alexandra S. Valdez.Balicdang. Cruz. .