Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
HELD: The SC deliberated upon the matter. After deliberation they voted and reached a 7-7 vote. They
deliberated again and the same result transpired. Since there was no majority vote, Cruzs petition was
dismissed and the IPRA law was sustained. Hence, ancestral domains may include natural resources
somehow against the regalian doctrine.
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 OSG again opposed Sacays petition. The OSG argued that Sacay et al do not have a
vested right over their occupied portions in the island. Boracay is an unclassified public
forest land pursuant to Section 3(a) of PD No. 705. Being public forest, the claimed portions
of the island are inalienable and cannot be the subject of judicial confirmation of imperfect
title. It is only the executive department, not the courts, which has authority to reclassify
lands of the public domain into alienable and disposable lands. There is a need for a
positive government act in order to release the lots for disposition.
ISSUES: Whether Proclamation No. 1801 and PTA Circular No. 3-82 pose any legal
obstacle for Yap et al and Sacay et al, and all those similarly situated, to acquire title to their
occupied lands in Boracay Island.
HELD: Yes. The SC ruled against Yap et al and Sacay et al. 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 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.
A positive act declaring land as alienable and disposable is required. In keeping with
the presumption of State ownership, 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. In the case at bar, no such proclamation, executive order,
administrative action, report, statute, or certification was presented. The records are bereft
of evidence showing that, prior to 2006, the portions of Boracay occupied by private
claimants were subject of a government proclamation that the land is alienable and
disposable. Absent such well-nigh incontrovertible evidence, the Court cannot accept the
submission that lands occupied by private claimants were already open to disposition
before 2006. Matters of land classification or reclassification cannot be assumed.
Also, private claimants also contend that their continued possession of portions of Boracay
Island for the requisite period of ten (10) years under Act No. 926 ipso facto converted the
island into private ownership. Private claimants continued possession under Act No.
926 does not create a presumption that the land is alienable. It is plain error for
petitioners to argue that under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and Public Land Act No.
926, mere possession by private individuals of lands creates the legal presumption
that the lands are alienable and disposable.
Private claimants are not entitled to apply for judicial confirmation of imperfect title
under CA No. 141. Neither do they have vested rights over the occupied lands under
the said law. There are two requisites for judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete
title under CA No. 141, namely:
(1) open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject
land by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest under a bona fide claim of ownership
since time immemorial or from June 12, 1945; and
(2) the classification of the land as alienable and disposable land of the public domain.
The tax declarations in the name of private claimants are insufficient to prove the first
element of possession. The SC noted that the earliest of the tax declarations in the name of
private claimants were issued in 1993. Being of recent dates, the tax declarations are not
sufficient to convince this Court that the period of possession and occupation commenced
on June 12, 1945.
Yap et al and Sacay et al insist that they have a vested right in Boracay, having been in
possession of the island for a long time. They have invested millions of pesos in developing
the island into a tourist spot. They say their continued possession and investments give
them a vested right which cannot be unilaterally rescinded by Proclamation No. 1064.
The continued possession and considerable investment of private claimants do not
automatically give them a vested right in Boracay. Nor do these give them a right to apply
for a title to the land they are presently occupying. The SC is constitutionally bound to
decide cases based on the evidence presented and the laws applicable. As the law and
jurisprudence stand, private claimants are ineligible to apply for a judicial confirmation of
title over their occupied portions in Boracay even with their continued possession and
considerable investment in the island.
Key Provisions[edit]
Right of Empowerment and Self Governance[edit]
SECTION 13. Self-Governance. The State recognizes the inherent right of ICCs/IPs to selfgovernance and self-determination and respects the integrity of their values, practices and
institutions. Consequently, the State shall guarantee the right of ICCs/IPs to freely pursue their
economic, social and cultural development.
SECTION 14. Support for Autonomous Regions. The State shall continue to strengthen and
support the autonomous regions created under the Constitution as they may require or need. The
State shall likewise encourage other ICCs/IPs not included or outside Muslim Mindanao and the
Cordilleras to use the form and content of their ways of life as may be compatible with the
fundamental rights defined in the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and other
internationally recognized human rights.
SECTION 15. Justice System, Conflict Resolution Institutions, and Peace Building Processes.
The ICCs/IPs shall have the right to use their own commonly accepted justice systems, conflict
resolution institutions, peace building processes or mechanisms and other customary laws and
practices within their respective communities and as may be compatible with the national legal
system and with internationally recognized human rights.
SECTION 16. Right to Participate in Decision-Making. ICCs/IPs have the right to participate fully,
if they so choose, at all levels of decision-making in matters which may affect their rights, lives and
destinies through procedures determined by them as well as to maintain and develop their own
indigenous political structures. Consequently, the State shall ensure that the ICCs/IPs shall be given
mandatory representation in policy-making bodies and other local legislative councils.
SECTION 17. Right to Determine and Decide Priorities for Development. The ICCs/IPs shall have
the right to determine and decide their own priorities for development affecting their lives, beliefs,
institutions, spiritual well-being, and the lands they own, occupy or use. They shall participate in the
formulation, implementation and evaluation of policies, plans and programs for national, regional and
local development which may directly affect them.
SECTION 18. Tribal Barangays. The ICCs/IPs living in contiguous areas or communities where
they form the predominant population but which are located in municipalities, provinces or cities
where they do not constitute the majority of the population, may form or constitute a separate
barangay in accordance with the Local Government Code on the creation of tribal barangays.
SECTION 19. Role of Peoples Organizations. The State shall recognize and respect the role of
independent ICCs/IPs organizations to enable the ICCs/IPs to pursue and protect their legitimate
and collective interests and aspirations through peaceful and lawful means.
SECTION 20. Means for Development/Empowerment of ICCs/IPs. The Government shall
establish the means for the full development/empowerment of the ICCs/IPs own institutions and
initiatives and, where necessary, provide the resources needed therefore. [6]
whether private or public land, belong to the State." (4). Most argue that the IPRA is flawed because
it violates this (4). Instead of protecting the rights of the IPs, Section 57 strengthens argument that all
natural resources found in ancestral domains belong to the State (3).
The law guarantees indigenous peoples right to basic social services as provided by the State. As a
vulnerable group, special attention is given for the "immediate, effective and continuing improvement
of their economic and social conditions."[5]
Examples of services that fit this provision include social security through the Republic of the
Philippines Social Services System, housing, vocational training and employment support through
various efforts of the Department of Social Welfare and Development as well as complete health
coverage through the PhilHealth "No Balance Billing" from government hospitals. [7][8]
Women, Children and Youth[edit]
The law also emphasizes that these rights are also to be afforded to indigenous women and
children. The provisions should not result in "the diminution of rights and privileges already
recognized and afforded to these groups under existing laws of general application." [5] The
government through NCIP must provide support to organizations which are geared towards
empowering women and the youth to involve themselves in community/nation building.
In accordance to the customary laws of each tribe, the government must provide mechanisms that
facilitate deeper understanding of indigenous culture for women and youth while their human dignity.
The law ensures the full realization of women's and youth rights but requires all mechanisms and
programs to be culturally sensitive and relevant to the ICCs/IPs needs.
An example of the programs geared towards the execution of this particular provision in the IPRA is
the culturally sensitive day-care program for both IP children and their mothers which NCIP mentions
in its first administrative order.[9]
Cultural Integrity[edit]
Attempts to implement these rights regarding cultural integrity are most recently captured by the
celebration of National Indigenous People's Month on October to November 2014. This was said to
be the biggest gathering of Philippine indigenous peoples by far. Headed by the chairman of the
National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA), Felipe M. De Leon, Jr., showcased were the
traditional cuisines, rituals, musical performances and other elements of culture. This gave way for
indigenous peoples to interact and learn from one another's culture. It was held in three different
venues, from Oct. 22 to 23 at the Baguio Convention Center in Baguio City in Luzon in expected
attendees were from groups: Gaddang, Isinay, Tinggian, Itneg, Ibanag, Yogad, Itawit, Malaweg,
Kasiguran, Ivatan, Itbayat, Bugkalot, Isnag, Kalinga, Ifugao, Ibaloy, Kankanaey, Balangao, Bontok,
Applai, Ilocano, Bolinao, Pangasinan, Tagalog, Sambal, Pampangan, Ayta, Agta, Mangyan,
Palawani, Molbog, Jama Mapun, Tagbanua, Palawan, Agutaynen, Bicolano, Batak and Cuyunon;
from Nov. 6 to 7 in Zamboanga City in Mindanao aimed to highlight the groups: Yakan, Subanen,
Manobo, Higaonon, Bagobo, Mandaya, Mansaka, Blaan, Sangir, Ata Manobo, Tboli, Teduray,
Arumanen, Mamanwa, Maranao, Magindanao, Iranun and Tausug and from Nov. 10 to 11 in Bacolod
City, Negros Occidental in Visayas for the groups: Ati, Panay Bukidnon, Waray, Abaknon, Hiligaynon
and Cebuano. It was organized by the Subcommission of Cultural Communities and Traditional Arts,
a subcommission of the NCCA, along with the local governments, government agencies,
nongovernmental organizations and private companies with the theme of "Katutubong Filipino para
sa Kalikasan at Kapayapaan" ["Native Filipinos for Nature and Peace"