TodayisThursday,February18,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
THIRDDIVISION
G.R.No.173415March28,2008
MARIANOTANENGLIAN,Petitioner,
vs.
SILVESTRE LORENZO, MARIO DAPNISAN, TIMOTEO DAPNISAN, FELIX DAPNISAN, TONAS TAMPIC,
REGINATOBANES,NORMASIMEON,RODOLFOLACHICA,ARNESSERIL,RODOLFOLAVARO,FAUSTINO
SALANGO, PEDRO SANTIAGO, TEOFILO FULMANO, GEORGE KITOYAN, PEPTIO GAPAD, DAMIAN
PENERIA, MIKE FERNANDEZ, PABLO SACPA, WILFREDO AQUINO, ANDREW HERRERO, ROGELIO
CARREON,MANUELLAGARTERAANDLORENTINOSANTOS,Respondents.
DECISION
CHICONAZARIO,J.:
ThisisanappealbycertiorariunderRule45ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedureseekingthereversalandsetting
asideoftheResolution1dated5April2006oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.93668dismissingoutright
the petition for certiorari filed therewith by petitioner Mariano Tanenglian on the grounds that it was the wrong
remedyanditwasfiledbeyondthe15dayreglementaryperiod.LikewiseassailedhereinistheResolution2dated
4July2006oftheappellatecourtdenyingpetitionersMotionforReconsideration.
Thiscaseinvolvestwoparcelsofland(subjectproperties),locatedandadjacenttotheSto.TomasBaguioRoad,
with areas of 7,860 square meters and 21,882 square meters, covered respectively by Transfer Certificates of
Title (TCT) No. T29281 and T29282 registered in the Registry of Deeds of Baguio City both in the name of
petitioner.
Respondents Silvestre Lorenzo, et al., members of the Indigenous Cultural Minority of the Cordillera
AdministrativeRegion,filedaPetition3forRedemptionunderSec.12,RepublicActNo.38444dated29July1998
before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) praying that: (1) they be allowed to
exercisetheirrightofredemptionoverthesubjectproperties(2)TCTsNo.T29281andT29282inthenameof
petitionerbedeclarednullandvoid(3)thesubjectpropertiesbedeclaredasancestrallandpursuanttoSection9
ofRepublicActNo.66575and(4)petitionerbeorderedtopaydisturbancecompensationtorespondents.
InaDecisiondated16August1999,theRegionalAdjudicatorheld:
WHEREFORE, ALL THE PREMISES CONSIDERED AND IN THE BEST INTEREST OF AGRARIAN JUSTICE,
JUDGMENT IS HEREBY RENDERED IN FAVOR OF [HEREIN RESPONDENTS] AND AGAINST [HEREIN
PETITIONER]ASFOLLOWS:
1.Declaringthattheparcelsoflandrespectivelyoccupiedby[respondents]asancestrallandspursuantto
theprovisionsofSection9ofRepublicActNo.6657.
2.Declaring[respondents]astheancestrallandownersoftheparcelsoflandwhichtheyareoccupyingand
tilling
3. Ordering the Department of Agrarian Reform through its Regional Office, the Cordillera Administrative
Region, Baguio City to acquire the said parcels of land respectively occupied by [respondents] for
distributiontotheminordertoensuretheireconomic,socialandculturalwellbeingpursuanttoprovisions
ofSection9ofRANo.6657
4.OrderingtheRegionalEngineeringOfficeofDARCAR,BaguioCitytoconductsubdivisionsurveyonthe
said parcels of land occupied by [respondents] and for DARCAR to issue individual Certificate of Land
Ownership Awards (CLOAs) and have the same registered with the Office of the Registry of Deeds of
BaguioCity

5. Ordering [petitioner] or anybody under his command not to disturb the peaceful possession of
[respondents]ancestrallandholdingsand
6.OrderingtheOfficeoftheRegisterofDeeds,BaguioCitytocancelTransferCertificatesofTitleNos.T
29281 and T29282 both in the name of [petitioner] and for the latter to surrender to the Office of the
RegisterofDeedsofBaguioCitytheownersduplicatecertificatecopiesofsaidtitles.6
Petitioner received a copy of the aforequoted Decision on 27 August 1999. He filed with the Regional
Adjudicatoramotionforreconsiderationthereofon13September1999,whichtheRegionalAdjudicatordeniedin
hisOrderdated11October1999.PetitionerreceivedtheRegionalAdjudicatorsOrderdenyinghismotionon19
October1999. On the same day, 19 October 1999, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal,7 but the appeal fee of
P500.00inpostalmoneyorderwaspostmarked20October1999. Petitioners Notice of Appeal was denied by
theRegionalAdjudicatorinhisOrderdated26October1999.8TheRegionalAdjudicatorslatestOrderreads:
ORDER
SubmittedbeforetheBoardthroughthisAdjudicatorisa"NOTICEOFAPPEAL,"datedOctober19,1999,ofthe
DECISION in the aboveentitled case dated August 16, 1999 with a POSTAL MONEY ORDER in the amount of
FIVEHUNDREDPESOS(P500.00)ONLY(APPEALFEE)POSTMARKEDMakatiCentralPostOffice,M.M.,dated
October20,1999filedby[hereinpetitioner]throughcounsel.
It is noteworthy that both the aforesaid "NOTICE OF APPEAL" and "APPEAL FEE" were not filed and paid,
respectively,withintheREGLEMENTARYPERIODasprovidedforbytheDARABNEWRULESOFPROCEDURE
underSection5,RuleXIIIwhichstates:
SECTION5.RequisitesandperfectionoftheAppeal.
a) The Notice of Appeal shall be filed within the reglementary period as provided for in Section 1 of this
Rule.xxx
b)AnappealfeeofFiveHundredPesos(P500.00)shallbepaidbytheappellantwithinthereglementary
periodtotheDARCashierwheretheOfficeoftheAdjudicatorissituated.xxx.
Underthe3rdparagraphofsaidSECTION5,itfurtherstates:
Noncompliancewiththeabovementionedrequisitesshallbeagroundforthedismissaloftheappeal."
The records of this case show that the [petitioner] through counsel filed his "Motion for Reconsideration" of the
DecisionofthiscaseonSeptember13,1999whichwasthe15thdayofsaidReglementaryPeriod.The15thday
was supposed to have been on September 11, 1999 counted from August 28, 1999, the following day after
[petitioner]throughcounselreceivedacopyoftheDecisiononAugust27,1999butbecauseSeptember11,1999
wasaSaturday,the15thdaywasSeptember13,1999,thefollowingworkingday.Now,nowhereontherecords
ofthiscaseshowthattherequired"AppealFee"waspaidonorbeforethe15thdayoftheReglementaryPeriod.
The records of this case also show that this instant "NOTICE OF APPEAL" was filed on October 19, 1999,
(PostmarkedMakatiCentralP.O.,M.M.)thedaywhen[petitioner]throughcounselreceivedcopyoftheDenialof
the said "MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION." Since September 13, 1999 was the 15th day of said 15day
reglementaryperiod,thisinstantNOTICEOFAPPEAL"isconsideredfiledoutoftime.Eventhe"AppealFee"of
Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) in POSTAL MONEY ORDER, it is postmarked October 20, 1999, MAKATI
CENTRAL P.O. M.M. Since September 13, 1999 was the 15th day of said 15day reglementary period, this
"APPEALFEE"isconsideredpaidoutoftime.
Additionally,evengrantingwithoutadmittingthatthisinstant"NOTICEOFAPPEAL"and"APPEALFEE"werefiled
and paid, respectively, within the required reglementary period, [petitioner] through counsel miserably failed to
stateanygroundintheNoticeofAppealasprovidedforunderSECTION2,RULEXIIIoftheDARABNEWRULES
OFPROCEDURE.9
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,andpursuanttotheprovisionsofSECTION5andSECTION2,RuleXIIIof
theDARABNEWRULESOFPROCEDURE,thisinstant"NOTICEOFAPPEAL"isherebyDENIED.10
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration on 5 November 1999 but the same was denied by the Regional
Adjudicatoron15November1999.
Respondents filed a Motion for Execution on 27 October 1999. The Regional Adjudicator issued a Writ of
Executiondated17November1999.11
PetitionerthereafterfiledanoriginalactionforcertioraribeforetheDARABtoannultheOrderdated26October

1999, Order dated 15 November 1999 and the Writ of Execution dated 17 November 1999, all issued by the
RegionalAdjudicator.InaResolutiondated5May2005,theDARABdeniedpetitionerspetitionforcertiorarifor
lackofmerit,12holdingthat:
WhileitistruethatthefilingoftheNoticeofAppealdatedOctober19,1999wasmadewithinthereglementary
period to perfect the same, however, the required appeal fee was not paid within the reglementary period
because the last day to perfect an appeal is October 19, 1999, while the appeal fee in a form of postal money
order is postmarked October 20, 1999. Precisely, there is no payment of appeal fee within the 15day
reglementaryperiodtoperfectanappeal.Therefore,theorderofthe[RegionalAdjudicator]denyingthenoticeof
appeal of the petitioner is well within the ambit of the provisions of the abovequoted Rule, particularly the last
paragraphthereof,hencetheinstantpetitionmustnecessarilyfail.13
PetitionersmotionforreconsiderationoftheforegoingresolutionwasdeniedbytheDARABinanotherResolution
dated17January2006,14acopyofwhichwasreceivedbypetitioneron2February2006.
Refusing to concede, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari15 under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals on 17
March2006.
InaResolutiondated5April2006,theCourtofAppealsdismissedthePetition,reasoningasfollows:
Sections1and4,Rule43ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedureprovidethatanappealfromtheaward,judgment,
finalorderorresolutionoftheDepartmentofAgrarianReformunderRepublicActNo.6657,amongotherquasi
judicial agencies, shall be taken by filing with the Court of Appeals a petition for review within fifteen (15) days
fromnoticethereof,orofthedenialofthemotionfornewtrialorreconsiderationdulyfiledinaccordancewiththe
governinglawofthecourtoragencyaquo.
xxxx
Evenifweconsidertheinstantpetitionforcertiorariasapetitionforreview,thesamemuststillbedismissedfor
having been filed beyond the reglementary period of fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy of the Resolution
dated January 17, 2006. As pointed out in the abovecited case, appeals from all quasijudicial bodies shall be
madebywayofpetitionforreviewwiththeCourtofAppealsregardlessofthenatureofthequestionraised.
Wellsettledistherulethatcertiorariisnotavailablewheretheproperremedyisappealinduecourseandsuch
remedywaslostbecauseofrespondentsfailuretotakeanappeal.Thespecialcivilactionofcertiorariisnotand
cannotbemadeasubstituteforappealoralostappeal.16
PetitionersmotionforreconsiderationoftheaforequotedrulingwasdeniedbytheappellatecourtinaResolution
dated4July2006.
Hence,thepresentPetition,raisingthefollowingissues:
(a) Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the Petition under Rule 65 filed by the
PetitionermainlyonthegroundthattheproperremedyisaPetitionunderRule43oftheRulesofCourt.
(b)WhetherornottheRegionalAdjudicatoractedwithinhisauthoritywhenhedeclaredthesubjectparcels
oflandas"ancestrallands."
(c)WhetherornottheRegionalAdjudicatoractedwithinhisauthoritywhenhedeclaredthatthetitlesofthe
petitionershouldbedeclarednullandvoid.
Preliminarily,petitionerisactuallyaskingustoruleontheproprietyof(1)thedenialofhisNoticeofAppealbythe
RegionalAdjudicator,affirmedbytheDARABand(2)thedismissalofhisPetitionforCertiorari by the Court of
Appeals.
TheRegionalAdjudicatordeniedpetitionersNoticeofAppealbecausethelatterwasdelayedforonedayinthe
paymentofappealfee.
The2003RulesofProcedureoftheDARABlaysdownthefollowingprocedure:
RULEXIV
APPEALS
Section1.AppealtotheBoard.AnappealmaybetakentotheBoardfromaresolution,decisionorfinalorderof
theAdjudicatorthatcompletelydisposesofthecasebyeitherorbothofthepartieswithinaperiodoffifteen(15)
daysfromreceiptoftheresolution/decision/finalorderappealedfromorofthedenialofthemovantsmotionfor
reconsiderationinaccordancewithSection12,RuleIX,by:

1.1filingaNoticeofAppealwiththeAdjudicatorwhorenderedthedecisionorfinalorderappealedfrom
1.2furnishingcopiesofsaidNoticeofAppealtoallpartiesand
theBoardand
1.3 paying an appeal fee of Seven Hundred Pesos (Php700.00) to the DAR Cashier where the Office of the
Adjudicator is situated or through postal money order, payable to the DAR Cashier where the Office of the
Adjudicatorissituated,attheoptionoftheappellant.
Apauperlitigantshallbeexemptfromthepaymentoftheappealfee.
ProofofserviceofNoticeofAppealtotheaffectedpartiesandtotheBoardandpaymentofappealfeeshallbe
filed,withinthereglementaryperiod,withtheAdjudicatoraquoandshallformpartoftherecordsofthecase.
Noncompliancewiththeforegoingshallbeagroundfordismissaloftheappeal.
SECTION4.PerfectionofAppeal.AnappealisdeemedperfecteduponcompliancewithSection1ofthisRule.
A pauper litigants appeal is deemed perfected upon the filing of the Notice of Appeal in accordance with said
Section1ofthisRule.
Thegeneralruleisthatappealisperfectedbyfilinganoticeofappealandpayingtherequisitedocketfeesand
otherlawfulfees.17
However, all general rules admit of certain exceptions. In Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v.
Mangubat18wherethedocketfeeswerepaidsixdayslate,wesaidthatwherethepartyshowedwillingnessto
abide by the rules by immediately paying the required fees and taking into consideration the importance of the
issuesraisedinthecase,thesamecallsforjudicialleniency,thus:
Inall,whatemergesfromalloftheaboveisthattherulesofprocedureinthematterofpayingthedocketfees
must be followed. However, there are exceptions to the stringent requirement as to call for a relaxation of the
application of the rules, such as: (1) most persuasive and weighty reasons (2) to relieve a litigant from an
injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure (3) good faith of the
defaultingpartybyimmediatelypayingwithinareasonabletimefromthetimeofthedefault(4)theexistenceof
specialorcompellingcircumstances(5)themeritsofthecase(6)acausenotentirelyattributabletothefaultor
negligenceofthepartyfavoredbythesuspensionoftherules(7)alackofanyshowingthatthereviewsoughtis
merely frivolous and dilatory (8) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby (9) fraud, accident,
mistake or excusable negligence without appellants fault (10) peculiar legal and equitable circumstances
attendant to each case (11) in the name of substantial justice and fair play (12) importance of the issues
involved and (13) exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided by all the attendant circumstances.
Concomitant to a liberal interpretation of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the party
invoking liberality to adequately explain his failure to abide by the rules. Anyone seeking exemption from the
applicationoftheRulehastheburdenofprovingthatexceptionallymeritoriousinstancesexistwhichwarrantsuch
departure.19
We have not been oblivious to or unmindful of the extraordinary situations that merit liberal application of the
Rules,allowingus,dependingonthecircumstances,tosetasidetechnicalinfirmitiesandgiveduecoursetothe
appeal.Incaseswherewedispensewiththetechnicalities,wedonotmeantounderminetheforceandeffectivity
of the periods set by law. In those rare cases where we did not stringently apply the procedural rules, there
always existed a clear need to prevent the commission of a grave injustice. Our judicial system and the courts
have always tried to maintain a healthy balance between the strict enforcement of procedural laws and the
guaranteethateverylitigantbegiventhefullopportunityforthejustandproperdispositionofhiscause.20Ifthe
Highest Court of the land itself relaxes its rules in the interest of substantive justice, then what more the
administrativebodieswhichexercisequasijudicialfunctions?Itmustbeemphasizedthatthegoalofcourtsand
quasijudicialbodies,aboveelse,mustbetorendersubstantialjusticetotheparties.
Inthiscase,petitionerwasonlyonedaylateinpayingtheappealfee,andhealreadystandstolosehistitlesto
the subject properties. We find this too harsh a consequence for a days delay. Worthy to note is the fact that
petitioner actually paid the appeal fee only, he was a day late. That petitioner immediately paid the requisite
appealfeeadayafterthedeadlinedisplayshiswillingnesstocomplywiththerequirementtherefor.
WhenpetitionersoughtrecoursetotheCourtofAppealsviaaPetitionforCertiorariunderRule65oftheRulesof
Court, his Petition was dismissed. The Court of Appeals held that the petitioner availed himself of the wrong
remedyasanappealfromtheorder,award,judgmentorfinalorderoftheDARABshallbetakentotheCourtof
AppealsbyfilingapetitionforreviewunderRule43oftheRulesofCourtandnotapetitionforcertiorari under
Rule65.

Onthispoint,weagreewiththeCourtofAppeals.
PertinentprovisionsofRule43oftheRulesofCourtgoverningappealsfromquasijudicialagenciestotheCourt
ofAppeals,provide:
SECTION1.Scope.ThisRuleshallapplytoappealsfromjudgmentsorfinalordersoftheCourtofTaxAppeals
and from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasijudicial agency in the
exerciseofitsquasijudicialfunctions.AmongtheseagenciesaretheCivilServiceCommission,CentralBoardof
AssessmentAppeals,SecuritiesandExchangeCommission,OfficeofthePresident,LandRegistrationAuthority,
SocialSecurityCommission,CivilAeronauticsBoard,BureauofPatents,TrademarksandTechnologyTransfer,
National Electrification Administration, Energy Regulatory Board, National Telecommunications Commission,
DepartmentofAgrarianReformunderRepublicActNo.6657,GovernmentServiceInsuranceSystem,Employees
Compensation Commission, Agricultural Inventions Board, Insurance Commission, Philippine Atomic Energy
Commission, Board of Investments, Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, and voluntary arbitrators
authorizedbylaw.
xxxx
SEC.3.Wheretoappeal.AnappealunderthisRulemaybetakentotheCourtofAppealswithintheperiodand
inthemannerhereinprovided,whethertheappealinvolvesquestionsoffact,oflaw,ormixedquestionsoffact
andlaw.
SEC.4.Periodofappeal.Theappealshallbetakenwithinfifteen(15)daysfromnoticeoftheaward,judgment,
finalorderorresolution,orfromthedateofitslastpublication,ifpublicationisrequiredbylawforitseffectivity,or
ofthedenialofpetitionersmotionfornewtrialorreconsiderationdulyfiledinaccordancewiththegoverninglaw
ofthecourtoragencyaquo.Onlyone(1)motionforreconsiderationshallbeallowed.Uponpropermotionand
the payment of the full amount of the docket fee before the expiration of the reglementary period, the Court of
Appeals may grant an additional period of fifteen (15) days only within which to file the petition for review. No
further extension shall be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15)
days.
InNipponPaintEmployeesUnionOlaliav.CourtofAppeals,21weclarified:
Itiselementaryinremediallawthattheuseofanerroneousmodeofappealiscausefordismissalofthepetition
forcertiorariandithasbeenrepeatedlystressedthatapetitionforcertiorariisnotasubstituteforalostappeal.
This is due to the nature of a Rule 65 petition for certiorari which lies only where there is "no appeal," and "no
plain,speedyandadequateremedyintheordinarycourseoflaw."AspreviouslyruledbythisCourt:
x x x We have time and again reminded members of the bench and bar that a special civil action for certiorari
underRule65liesonlywhen"thereisnoappealnorplain,speedyandadequateremedyintheordinarycourse
oflaw."Certioraricannotbeallowedwhenapartytoacasefailstoappealajudgmentdespitetheavailabilityof
thatremedy,certiorarinotbeingasubstituteforlostappeal.Theremediesofappealandcertiorariaremutually
exclusiveandnotalternativeorsuccessive.
PetitionerclearlyavailedhimselfofthewrongmodeofappealinbringinghiscasebeforetheCourtofAppealsfor
review.
PetitionerfiledwiththeCourtofAppealsthespecialcivilactionofcertiorariunderRule65oftheRulesofCourt
insteadofapetitionforreviewunderRule43,notbecauseitwastheonlyplain,speedy,andadequateremedy
available to him under the law, but, obviously, to make up for the loss of his right to an ordinary appeal. It is
elementary that the special civil action of certiorari is not and cannot be a substitute for an appeal, where the
latterremedyisavailable,asitwasinthiscase.AspecialcivilactionunderRule65oftheRulesofCourtcannot
cure a partys failure to timely file a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Rule 65 is an
independentactionthatcannotbeavailedofasasubstituteforthelostremedyofanordinaryappeal,including
thatunderRule43,especiallyifsuchlossorlapsewasoccasionedbyapartysneglectorerrorinthechoiceof
remedies.22
Allthingsconsidered,however,wedonotagreeintheconclusionoftheCourtofAppealsdismissingpetitioners
Petitionbasedonaproceduralfauxpax.Whileapetitionforcertiorariisdismissibleforbeingthewrongremedy,
thereareexceptionstothisrule,towit:(a)whenpublicwelfareandtheadvancementofpublicpolicydictates(b)
when the broader interest of justice so requires (c) when the writs issued are null and void or (d) when the
questionedorderamountstoanoppressiveexerciseofjudicialauthority.23
In Sebastian v. Morales,24 we ruled that rules of procedure must be faithfully followed except only when, for
persuasivereasons,theymayberelaxedtorelievealitigantofaninjusticenotcommensuratewithhisfailureto
complywiththeprescribedprocedure,thus:

[C]onsideringthatthepetitionerhaspresentedagoodcausefortheproperandjustdeterminationofhiscase,the
appellate court should have relaxed the stringent application of technical rules of procedure and yielded to
considerationofsubstantialjustice.25
TheCourthasallowedsomemeritoriouscasestoproceeddespiteinherentproceduraldefectsandlapses.Thisis
inkeepingwiththeprinciplethatrulesofprocedurearemeretoolsdesignedtofacilitatetheattainmentofjustice
and that strict and rigid application of rules which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than
promote substantial justice must always be avoided. It is a far better and more prudent cause of action for the
courttoexcuseatechnicallapseandaffordthepartiesareviewofthecasetoattaintheendsofjustice,rather
than dispose of the case on technicality and cause grave injustice to the parties, giving a false impression of
speedydisposalofcaseswhileactuallyresultinginmoredelay,ifnotamiscarriageofjustice.26
We find that petitioners case fits more the exception rather than the general rule. Taking into account the
importance of the issues raised in the Petition, and what petitioner stands to lose, the Court of Appeals should
have given due course to the said Petition and treated it as a petition for review. By dismissing the Petition
outright,theCourtofAppealsabsolutelyforeclosedtheresolutionoftheissuesraisedtherein.Indubitably,justice
wouldhavebeenbetterservediftheCourtofAppealsresolvedtheissuesthatwereraisedinthePetition.
Conspicuously, the period to appeal had lapsed so that even if the Court of Appeals considered the petition as
oneforreviewunderRule43oftheRulesofCourt,stillthepetitionwasfiledbeyondthereglementaryperiod.But,
therecanbenoblinkingatthefactthatunderRule43,Section4oftheRulesofCourt,"theCourtofAppealsmay
grantanadditionalperiodoffifteen(15)daysonlywithinwhichtofilethepetitionforreview."Byanyreckoning,
theCourtofAppealsmayevengrantanadditionalperiodoffifteen(15)dayswithinwhichtofilethepetitionunder
Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. In other words, the period to appeal from quasijudicial agencies to the Court of
AppealsunderRule43isneitheranimpregnablenoranunyieldingrule.
The issue involved in this case is no less than the jurisdiction of the Regional Arbitrator to render its Decision
dated16August1999declaringthesubjectpropertiesasancestrallands.Aswell,itistooflagranttobeignored
thattheselandsarecoveredbyaTorrenstitleinthenameofthepetitioner.TheCourtofAppealsshouldhave
lookedpastrulesoftechnicalitytoresolvethecaseonitsmerits.
For DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case, there must exist a tenancy relationship between the parties. A
tenancyrelationshipcannotbepresumed.Theremustbeevidencetoprovethetenancyrelationssuchthatallits
indispensable elements must be established, to wit: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant (2) the
subjectisagriculturalland(3)thereisconsentbythelandowner(4)thepurposeisagriculturalproduction(5)
thereispersonalcultivationand(6)thereissharingoftheharvests.Alltheserequisitesarenecessarytocreate
tenancy relationship, and the absence of one or more requisites will not make the alleged tenant a de facto
tenant.27
InHeirsofRafaelMagpilyv.DeJesus,28 tenants are defined as persons who in themselves and with the aid
availablefromwithintheirimmediatefarmhouseholderstheycultivatethelandsbelongingtoorpossessedby
another with the latters consent for purposes of production, they share the produce with the landholder under
thesharetenancysystem,orpaytothelandholderapricecertainorascertainableinproduceofmoneyorboth
undertheleaseholdtenancysystem.
Inthiscase,respondentsdidnotallegemuchlessprovethattheyaretenantsofthesubjectproperties.Thereis
likewisenoindependentevidencetoproveanyoftherequisitesofatenancyrelationshipbetweenpetitionerand
respondents.Whattheyinsistuponisthattheyareoccupyingtheirancestrallandscoveredbytheprotectionof
thelaw.
InhisDecision,theRegionalAdjudicatorhimselffoundthattherewasnotenancyrelationshipbetweenpetitioner
andrespondents,towit:
[Herein petitioner] pleaded for his defense to the claims of [herein respondents] right of redemption contending
that the [respondents] have not proven any tenurial relationship with him. Indeed, the records show that herein
[respondents] have not proven their tenurial relationship with [petitioner], hence Section 12 of Republic Act No.
3844,asamended,doesnotapplytothesaidclaimofrightofredemption.
Astotheclaimof[respondents],thatis,for"disturbancecompensation"underSection36(1)ofRepublicActNo.
3844, said provision of law to the opinion of the Board through this Adjudicator, cannot apply in the said claim
since [respondents] have not also proven tenancyrelationship which is a requirement to be entitled to
"disturbancecompensation."29
Under law and settled jurisprudence, and based on the records of this case, the Regional Adjudicator evidently
hasnojurisdictiontohearandresolverespondentscomplaint.Intheabsenceofatenancyrelationship,thecase
fallsoutsidethejurisdictionoftheDARABitiscognizablebytheRegularCourts.30

Moreover,theRegionalAdjudicatorinhisDecisiondated16August1999foundthat:
ThethirdclaimofhereinPetitionersasprayedforistheirrightto"ancestrallands"underSection9ofRepublicAct
No.6657whichprovidesasfollows:
SECTION 9. ANCESTRAL LANDS. For purposes of this act, ancestral lands of each indigenous cultural
communityshallincludebutnotlimitedtolandsintheactual,continuousandopenpossessionandoccupationof
thecommunityanditsmembers:Provided,thattheTorrensSystemshallberespected.
The rights of these communities of their ancestral land shall be protected to insure their economic, social and
culturalwellbeing.Inlinewiththeprinciplesofselfdeterminationandautonomy,thesystemoflandownership,
land use and the modes of settling land disputes of all these communities must be recognized and respected.
(UnderscoringSupplied.)
Anyprovisionoflawtothecontrarynotwithstanding,thePARCmaysuspendtheimplementationoftheactwith
respect to ancestral lands for the purpose of identifying and delineating such lands Provided, that in the
autonomous regions, the respective legislatures may enact their own laws in ancestral domain subject to the
provisionsoftheconstitutionandtheprinciplesenumerated,initiatedinthisActandother(sic).
Applying the aforecited provisions of law, it is clear without fear of contradiction that herein Petitioners are
membersoftheindigenousculturalcommunity(theKankanaisandIbalois)oftheCordilleraAdministrativeRegion
(CAR).Itisalsoclearthattheyhavebeenintheactual,continuousandinopenpossessionandoccupationofthe
community as evidenced by residential houses, tax declarations and improvements as seen during the ocular
inspection(thepropertyinquestion).
While it is true that the aforecited provisions of law provides an exception that is: "Provided, that the Torrens
Systemshallberespected,"sothatinthisinstantcase,thereisaCONFLICTinthatwhilethepropertyinquestion
is occupied by herein Petitioners, the same property is titled (T29281 and T29282) in the name of herein
Respondent, MARIANO TAN ENG LIAN married to ALETA SO TUN (a Chinese) who are not members of the
culturalminority.
Inthiscase,theTorrensSystemshallberespected.Butunderthe2ndparagraphofsaidlaw,itwentfurtherto
say, "THE RIGHT OF THESE COMMUNITIES TO THEIR ANCESTRAL LANDS SHALL BE PROTECTED TO
ENSURE THEIR ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL WELLBEING. IN LINE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF
SELFDETERMINATION AND AUTONOMY, THE SYSTEM OF LAND OWNERSHIP, LAND USE AND THE
MODES OF SETTLING LAND DISPUTES OF ALL THESE COMMUNITIES MUST BE RECOGNIZED AND
RESPECTED.(Underscoringsupplied.)ItisthereforetheconsideredopinionoftheBoardthroughthisAdjudicator
that the property subject of this case which is an ancestral land be acquired by the government (through the
Regional Office of the Department of Agrarian Reform of the Cordillera Administrative Region, Baguio City), for
eventualdistributiontothehereinPetitioners.Thisisthespiritofthelaw.31
It is worthy to note that the Regional Adjudicator, in ruling that the subject properties are ancestral lands of the
respondents,reliedsolelyonthedefinitionofancestrallandsunderSection9ofRepublicActNo.6657.However,
aspeciallaw,RepublicActNo.8371,otherwiseknownastheIndigenousPeoplesRightsActof1997,specifically
governstherightsofindigenouspeopletotheirancestraldomainsandlands.
Section 3(a) and (b)32 of Republic Act No. 8371 provides a more thorough definition of ancestral domains and
ancestrallands:
SECTION3.DefinitionofTerms.ForpurposesofthisAct,thefollowingtermsshallmean:
a) Ancestral Domains Subject to Section 56 hereof, refers to all areas generally belonging to ICCs/IPs
comprising lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and natural resources therein, held under a claim of
ownership,occupiedorpossessedbyICCs/IPs,bythemselvesorthroughtheirancestors,communallyor
individually since time immemorial, continuously to the present except when interrupted by war, force
majeureordisplacementbyforce,deceit,stealthorasaconsequenceofgovernmentprojectsoranyother
voluntary dealings entered into by government and private individuals/corporations, and which are
necessary to ensure their economic, social and cultural welfare. It shall include ancestral lands, forests,
pasture, residential, agricultural, and other lands individually owned whether alienable and disposable or
otherwise, hunting grounds, burial grounds, worship areas, bodies of water, mineral and other natural
resources, and lands which may no longer be exclusively occupied by ICCs/IPs but from which they
traditionally had access to for their subsistence and traditional activities, particularly the home ranges of
ICCs/IPswhoarestillnomadicand/orshiftingcultivators
b) Ancestral Lands Subject to Section 56 hereof, refers to lands occupied, possessed and utilized by
individuals,familiesandclanswhoaremembersoftheICCs/IPssincetimeimmemorial,bythemselvesor
through their predecessorsininterest, under claims of individual or traditional group ownership,

continuously, to the present except when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force,
deceit,stealth,orasaconsequenceofgovernmentprojectsandothervoluntarydealingsenteredintoby
governmentandprivateindividuals/corporations,including,butnotlimitedto,residentiallots,riceterraces
orpaddies,privateforests,swiddenfarmsandtreelots.
RepublicActNo.8371createstheNationalCommissiononIndigenousCulturalCommunities/IndigenousPeople
(NCIP) which shall be the primary government agency responsible for the formulation and implementation of
policies, plans and programs to promote and protect the rights and wellbeing of the indigenous cultural
communities/indigenous people (ICCs/IPs) and the recognition of their ancestral domains as well as their rights
thereto.33
Prior to Republic Act No. 8371, ancestral domains and lands were delineated under the Department of
EnvironmentandNaturalResources(DENR)andgovernedbyDENRAdministrativeOrderNo.2,seriesof1993.
Presently,theprocessofdelineationandrecognitionofancestraldomainsandlandsisguidedbytheprincipleof
selfdelineationandissetforthunderSections52and53,ChapterVIIIofRepublicActNo.837134andinPartI,
RuleVIIofNCIPAdministrativeOrderNo.0198(RulesandRegulationsImplementingRepublicActNo.8371).35
OfficialdelineationisunderthejurisdictionoftheAncestralDomainsOffice(ADO)oftheNCIP.36
Itisirrefragable,therefore,thattheRegionalAdjudicatoroversteppedtheboundariesofhisjurisdictionwhenhe
made a declaration that the subject properties are ancestral lands and proceeded to award the same to the
respondents, when jurisdiction over the delineation and recognition of the same is explicitly conferred on the
NCIP.
TheRegionalAdjudicatorevenmadethefollowingdispositiononpetitionersTCTs:
As to the two (2) TCTs (T29281 and T29282) issued to herein respondent, the records (Annex "C" for
Respondent) of this case show under the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of the DECISION dated June 28, 1991
provides:
ThesubjectparcelsoflandwereoriginallytitledinthenameofULBANAALSIOunderOriginalCertificateofTitle
No.0131whichsheobtainedonJuly15,1965(Exhibit"D")throughapetitionforthejudicialreopeningofCivil
ReservationCaseNo.1,G.L.R.O.RecordNo.211`(Exhibits"A"and"B")thatwasgrantedbytheCourtofFirst
InstanceoftheCityofBaguioinitsdecisiondatedFebruary08,1965(Exhibit"C")subsequentlybyAlsiotoJose
Perez(Exhibit"I")inturntoRosarioOreta(Exhibit"J")andthentoLutgardaPlatononApril30,1972(Exhibit"K").
AtthetimePlatonacquiredtheproperty,itwasalreadysubdividedintotwo(2)lotshence,shewasissuedTCT
Nos.T20830(Exhibit"G")andT20831(Exhibit"H").
Meanwhile,onDecember22,1977,P.D.1271wasissuednullifyingalldecreesofregistrationandcertificatesof
titleissuedpursuanttodecisionsoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofBaguioandBenguetinpetitionforthejudicial
reopening of Civil Reservation Case No. 1, G.L.R.O. Record No. 211 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction but
allowedtimetothetitleholdersconcernedtoapplyforthevalidationoftheirtitlesundercertainconditions.
Theaforecitedtwo(2)paragraphsgivecredencetotheallegationofthePetitionersintheiroriginalpetition(nos.
16,17and18)thatthetitlesofRespondentspredecessorsininterestweresecuredthroughfraud.Theyreferred
as an example a letter (Annex "E" for Petitioners) coming from the Land Management Bureau, Manila which
madetherecommendationasfollows:
RECOMMENDATION
In view of the foregoing findings, it is respectfully recommended that the steps be taken in the proper court of
justice for the cancellation of the Original Certificates of Title No. 0131 of Ulbano Alsio and its corresponding
derivativetitlessothatthelandberevertedtothemassofthepublicdomainandthereafter,disposethesameto
qualifiedapplicantsundertheprovisionsofRANo.730.37
Once more, the Regional Adjudicator acted without jurisdiction in entertaining a collateral attack on petitioners
TCTs.
Inanearliercaseforquietingoftitleinstitutedbythepetitionerbeforethetrialcourt,whichreachedthisCourtas
G.R.No.118515,38petitionersownershipandtitlestothesubjectpropertieshadbeenaffirmedwithfinality,with
entryofjudgmenthavingbeenmadethereinon15January1996.Asuitforquietingoftitleisanactionquasiin
rem,39whichisconclusiveonlytothepartiestothesuit.Itistooglaringtoescapeourattentionthatseveralofthe
respondentshereinwerethedefendantsinthesuitforquietingoftitlebeforethetrialcourtandthesubsequent
petitioners in G.R. No. 118515.40 The finality of the Decision in G.R. No. 118515 is therefore binding upon
them.41AlthoughtheDecisioninG.R.No.118515isnotbindingontheotherrespondentswhowerenotparties
thereto,saidrespondentsarestillconfrontedwithpetitionersTCTswhichtheymustdirectlychallengebeforethe
appropriatetribunal.

Respondents,thus,cannotprayfortheRegionalAdjudicatortodeclarepetitionersTCTsnullandvoid,forsuch
wouldconstituteacollateralattackonpetitionerstitleswhichisnotallowedunderthelaw.ATorrenstitlecannot
becollaterallyattacked.42Acollateralattackismadewhen,inanotheractiontoobtainadifferentrelief,anattack
onthejudgmentismadeasanincidenttosaidaction,43asopposedtoadirectattackagainstajudgmentwhich
is made through an action or proceeding, the main object of which is to annul, set aside, or enjoin the
enforcement of such judgment, if not yet carried into effect or, if the property has been disposed of, the
aggrievedpartymaysueforrecovery.44
1 a v v p h i1

The petitioners titles to the subject properties have acquired the character of indeafeasibility, being registered
undertheTorrensSystemofregistration.OnceadecreeofregistrationismadeundertheTorrensSystem,and
thereglementaryperiodhaspassedwithinwhichthedecreemaybequestioned,thetitleisperfectedandcannot
becollaterallyquestionedlateron.45Topermitacollateralattackonpetitionerstitle,suchaswhatrespondents
attempt, would reduce the vaunted legal indeafeasibility of a Torrens title to meaningless verbiage.46 It has,
therefore, become an ancient rule that the issue on the validity of title, i.e., whether or not it was fraudulently
issued,canonlyberaisedinanactionexpresslyinstitutedforthatpurpose.47
Anydecisionrenderedwithoutjurisdictionisatotalnullityandmaybestruckdownanytime.48InTambunting,Jr.
v.Sumabat,49wedeclaredthatavoidjudgmentisinlegaleffectnojudgment,bywhichnorightsaredivested,
fromwhichnorightscanbeobtained,whichneitherbindsnorbondsanyone,andunderwhichallactsperformed
andallclaimsflowingtherefromarevoid.InthePetitionatbar,sincetheRegionalAdjudicatorisevidentlywithout
jurisdiction to rule on respondents complaint without the existence of a tenancy relationship between them and
thepetitioner,thentheDecisionherenderedisvoid.
Wherefore,premisesconsidered,theinstantpetitionisGranted.TheResolutionsoftheCourtofAppealsdated5
April2006and4July2006areREVERSEDandSETASIDE.TheDecisiondated16August1999oftheRegional
AdjudicatorinCasesNo.DCNNO011798BCARtoDCN014098BCARisdeclaredNULLandVOID,andthe
respondentspetitionthereinisorderedDISMISSED,withoutprejudicetothefilingofthepropercasebeforethe
appropriatetribunal.Nocosts.
SOORDERED.
MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ
AssociateJustice
ActingChairperson
DANTEO.TINGA*
AssociateJustice

ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJustice
RUBENT.REYES
AssociateJustice
ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedto
thewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ
AssociateJustice
ActingChairperson,ThirdDivision
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Acting Chairpersons Attestation, it is
hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
*PerSpecialOrderNo.497,dated14March2008,signedbyChiefJusticeReynatoS.Punodesignating

AssociateJusticeDanteO.TingatoreplaceAssociateJusticeConsueloYnaresSantiago,whoisonofficial
leaveundertheCourtsWellnessProgramandassigningAssociateJusticeAliciaAustriaMartinezasActing
Chairperson.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Marina L. Buzon with Associate Justices Aurora SantiagoLagman and

ArcangelitaRomillaLontok,concurring.Rollo,pp.3034.
2Id.at3641.
3DocketedasDCN011798BCARtoDCN014098BCAR.
4 Code of Agrarian Reform of the Philippines also known as "An Act To Ordain The Agricultural Land

Reform Code And To Institute Land Reforms In The Philippines, Including The Abolition Of Tenancy And
TheChannelingOfCapitalIntoIndustry,ProvideForTheNecessaryImplementingAgencies,Appropriate
FundsThereforAndForOtherPurposes."Section12reads:
Sec.12.LesseesRightofRedemption.Incasethelandholdingissoldtoathirdpersonwithoutthe
knowledge of the agricultural lessee, the latter shall have the right to redeem the same at a
reasonablepriceandconsideration:xxx.
5TheComprehensiveAgrarianReformLawof1988.
6Rollo,pp.8182.
7Id.at83.
8Id.at85.
9 Section 1. Grounds. The aggrieved party may appeal to the Board from a final order, resolution or

decisionoftheAdjudicatoronanyofthefollowinggrounds:
a)Thaterrorsinthefindingsoffactsorconclusionsoflawswerecommittedwhich,ifnotcorrected,
wouldcausegraveandirreparabledamageorinjurytotheappellant
xxxx
c)Thattheorder,resolutionordecisionwasobtainedthroughfraudorcoercion.
10Rollo,pp.8586.
11MemorandumofRespondents,temporaryrollo,p.3.
12Rollo,p.89.
13Id.at9495.
14Id.at99.
15Id.at103.
16Id.at3134.
17Baniquedv.Ramos,G.R.No.158615,4March2005,452SCRA813,818.
18371Phil.394(1999).
19KLTFruits,Inc.v.WSRFruits,Inc.,G.R.No.174219,23November2007Villenav.Rupisan,G.R.No.

167620,3April2007,520SCRA346,367368.
20Neypesv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.141524,14September2005,469SCRA633,643.
21G.R.No.159010,19November2004,443SCRA286,291.

22SeeCentroEscolarUniversityFacultyandAlliedWorkersUnionIndependentv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.

No. 165486, 31 May 2006, 490 SCRA 61, 69 Hanjin Engineering and Construction Co., Ltd. v. Court of
Appeals,G.R.No.165910,10April2006,487SCRA78,100.
23HanjinEnginerringandConstructionCo.,Ltd.v.CourtofAppeals,ibid.
24445Phil595,604(2003).
25Vallejov.CourtofAppeals.G.R.No.156413,14April2004,427SCRA658,668.
26Id.
27Suarezv.Saul,G.R.No.166664,20October2005,473SCRA628,634.
28G.R.No.167748,8November2005,474SCRA366,375.
29Rollo,p.78.
30Suarezv.Saul,supranote27at634.
31Rollo,pp.7879.
32TheIndigenousPeoplesRightsActof1997.
33Section38.
34Sec.52.DelineationProcess.Theidentificationanddelineationofancestraldomainsshallbedonein

accordancewiththefollowingprocedures:
a)AncestralDomainsDelineatedPriortothisAct.Theprovisionshereundershallnotapply
toancestraldomains/landsalreadydelineatedaccordingtoDENRAdministrativeOrderNo.2,
series of 1993, nor to ancestral lands and domains delineated under any other
community/ancestral domain program prior to the enactment of this law. ICCs/IPs whose
ancestrallands/domainswereofficiallydelineatedpriortotheenactmentofthislawshallhave
therightstoapplyfortheissuanceofaCertificateofAncestralDomainTitle(CADT)overthe
areawithoutgoingthroughtheprocessoutlinedhereunder
b)PetitionforDelineation.Theprocessofdelineatingaspecificperimetermaybeinitiatedby
theNCIPwiththeconsentoftheICC/IPconcerned,orthroughaPetitionforDelineationfiled
withtheNCIP,byamajorityofthemembersoftheICCs/IPs
c) Delineation Proper. The official delineation of ancestral domain boundaries including
census of all community members therein, shall be immediately undertaken by the Ancestral
Domains Office upon filing of the application by the ICCs/IPs concerned. Delineation will be
done in coordination with the community concerned and shall at all times include genuine
involvementandparticipationbythemembersofthecommunitiesconcerned
d)ProofRequired.ProofofAncestralDomainclaimsshallincludethetestimonyofeldersor
community under oath, and other documents directly or indirectly attesting to the possession
or occupation of the area since time immemorial by such ICCs/IPs in the concept of owners
whichshallbeanyone(1)ofthefollowingauthenticdocuments:
(1)WrittenaccountsoftheICCs/IPscustomsandtraditions
(2)WrittenaccountsoftheICCs/IPspoliticalstructureandinstitution
(3) Pictures showing long term occupation such as those of old improvements, burial
grounds,sacredplacesandoldvillages
(4)Historicalaccounts,includingpactsandagreementsconcerningboundariesentered
intobytheICCs/IPsconcernedwithotherICCs/IPs
(5)Surveyplansandsketchmaps
(6)Anthropologicaldata

(7)Genealogicalsurveys
(8)Picturesanddescriptivehistoriesoftraditionalcommunalforestsandhunting
grounds
(9)Picturesanddescriptivehistoriesoftraditionallandmarkssuchasmountains,rivers,
creeks,ridges,hills,terracesandthelikeand
(10)Writeupsofnamesandplacesderivedfromthenativedialectofthecommunity.
e) Preparation of Maps. On the basis of such investigation and the findings of fact based
thereon, the Ancestral Domains Office of the NCIP shall prepare a perimeter map, complete
withtechnicaldescription,andadescriptionofthenaturalfeaturesandlandmarksembraced
therein
f)ReportofInvestigationandOtherDocuments.Acompletecopyofthepreliminarycensus
andareportofinvestigation,shallbepreparedbytheAncestralDomainsOfficeoftheNCIP.
g) Notice and Publication. A copy of each document, including a translation in the native
languageoftheICCs/IPsconcernedshallbepostedinaprominentplacethereinforatleast
fifteen (15) days. A copy of the document shall also be posted at the local, provincial and
regionalofficesoftheNCIP,andshallbepublishedinanewspaperofgeneralcirculationonce
aweekfortwo(2)consecutiveweekstoallowotherclaimantstofileoppositiontheretowithin
fifteen (15) days from date of such publication: Provided, That in areas where no such
newspaper exists, broadcasting in a radio station will be a valid substitute: Provided, further,
That mere posting shall be deemed sufficient if both newspaper and radio station are not
available.
h) Endorsement to NCIP. Within fifteen (15) days from publication, and of the inspection
process, the Ancestral Domains Office shall prepare a report to the NCIP endorsing a
favorableactionuponaclaimthatisdeemedtohavesufficientproof.However,iftheproofis
deemed insufficient, the Ancestral Domains Office shall require the submission of additional
evidence: Provided, That the Ancestral Domains Office shall reject any claim that is deemed
patentlyfalseorfraudulentafterinspectionandverification:Provided,further,Thatincaseof
rejection, the Ancestral Domains Office shall give the applicant due notice, copy furnished all
concerned, containing the grounds for denial. The denial shall be appealable to the NCIP:
Provided,furthermore,ThatincaseswherethereareconflictingclaimsamongICCs/IPsonthe
boundaries of ancestral domain claims, the Ancestral Domains Office shall cause the
contending parties to meet and assist them in coming up with a preliminary resolution of the
conflict,withoutprejudicetoitsfulladjudicationaccordingtothesectionbelow
i) Turnover of Areas Within Ancestral Domains Managed by Other Government Agencies.
The Chairperson of the NCIP shall certify that the area covered is an ancestral domain. The
secretaries of the Department of Agrarian Reform, Department of Environment and Natural
Resources,DepartmentoftheInteriorandLocalGovernment,andDepartmentofJustice,the
Commissioner of the National Development Corporation, and any other government agency
claimingjurisdictionovertheareashallbenotifiedthereof.Suchnotificationshallterminateany
legalbasisforthejurisdictionpreviouslyclaimed
j)IssuanceofCADT.ICCs/IPswhoseancestraldomainshavebeenofficiallydelineatedand
determined by the NCIP shall be issued a CADT in the name of the community concerned,
containingalistofallthoseidentifiedinthecensusand
k) Registration of CADTs. The NCIP shall register issued certificates of ancestral domain
titlesandcertificatesofancestrallandstitlesbeforetheRegisterofDeedsintheplacewhere
thepropertyissituated.
SEC.53.Identification,DelineationandCertificationofAncestralLands
a) The allocation of lands within any ancestral domain to individual or indigenous corporate
(familyorclan)claimantsshallbelefttotheICCs/IPsconcernedtodecideinaccordancewith
customsandtraditions
b) Individual and indigenous corporate claimants of ancestral lands which are not within
ancestral domains, may have their claims officially established by filing applications for the
identificationanddelineationoftheirclaimswiththeAncestralDomainsOffice.Anindividualor
recognized head of a family or clan may file such application in his behalf or in behalf of his

familyorclan,respectively
c) Proofs of such claims shall accompany the application form which shall include the
testimony under oath of elders of the community and other documents directly or indirectly
attestingtothepossessionoroccupationoftheareassincetimeimmemorialbytheindividual
orcorporateclaimantsintheconceptofownerswhichshallbeanyoftheauthenticdocuments
enumeratedunderSec.52(d)ofthisAct,includingtaxdeclarationsandproofsofpaymentof
taxes
d)TheAncestralDomainsOfficemayrequirefromeachancestralclaimantthesubmissionof
suchotherdocuments,SwornStatementsandthelike,whichinitsopinion,mayshedlighton
theveracityofthecontentsoftheapplication/claim
e)Uponreceiptoftheapplicationsfordelineationandrecognitionofancestrallandclaims,the
Ancestral Domains Office shall cause the publication of the application and a copy of each
documentsubmittedincludingatranslationinthenativelanguageoftheICCs/IPsconcernedin
aprominentplacethereinforatleastfifteen(15)days.Acopyofthedocumentshallalsobe
posted at the local, provincial, and regional offices of the NCIP and shall be published in a
newspaper of general circulation once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks to allow other
claimants to file opposition thereto within fifteen (15) days from the date of such publication:
Provided,Thatinareawherenosuchnewspaperexists,broadcastinginaradiostationwillbe
a valid substitute: Provided, further, That mere posting shall be deemed sufficient if both
newspapersandradiostationarenotavailable
f)Fifteen(15)daysaftersuchpublication,theAncestralDomainsOfficeshallinvestigateand
inspecteachapplication,andiffoundtobemeritorious,shallcauseaparcellarysurveyofthe
area being claimed. The Ancestral Domains Office shall reject any claim that is deemed
patentlyfalseorfraudulentafterinspectionandverification.Incaseofrejection,theAncestral
Domains Office shall give the applicant due notice, copy furnished all concerned, containing
thegroundsfordenial.ThedenialshallbeappealabletotheNCIP.Incaseofconflictingclaims
amongindividualorindigenouscorporateclaimants,theAncestralDomainsOfficeshallcause
the contending parties to meet and assist them in coming up with a preliminary resolution of
the conflict, without prejudice to its full adjudication according to Sec. 62 of this Act. In all
proceedings for the identification or delineation of the ancestral domains as herein provided,
theDirectorofLandsshallrepresenttheinterestoftheRepublicofthePhilippinesand
g) The Ancestral Domains Office shall prepare and submit a report on each and every
application surveyed and delineated to the NCIP which shall, in turn, evaluate the report
submitted.IftheNCIPfindssuchclaimmeritorious,itshallissueacertificateofancestralland,
declaringandcertifyingtheclaimofeachindividualorcorporate(familyorclan)claimantover
ancestrallands.
35NCIPADMINISTRATIVEORDERNO.0198.RULESANDREGULATIONSIMPLEMENTINGREPUBLIC

ACT NO. 8371. RULE VIII, Delineation and Recognition of Ancestral Domains, PART I, Delineation and
RecognitionofAncestralDomains/Lands:
SECTION1.PrincipleofSelfDelineation.Ancestraldomainsshallbeidentifiedanddelineatedby
the ICCs/IPs themselves through their respective Council of Elders/Leaders whose members are
identifiedbythemthroughcustomaryprocesses.Themetesandboundsofancestraldomainsshall
beestablishedthroughtraditionallyrecognizedphysicallandmarks,suchas,butnotlimitedto,burial
grounds,mountains,ridges,hills,rivers,creeks,stoneformationsandthelike.
Politicaloradministrativeboundaries,existinglanduses,leases,programsandprojectsorpresence
ofnonICCsintheareashallnotlimittheextentofanancestraldomainnorshallthesebeusedto
reduceitsarea.
xxxx
SECTION 2. Procedure on Ancestral Domain Delineation. The Ancestral Domains Office (ADO)
shallberesponsiblefortheofficialdelineationofancestraldomainsandlands.Forthispurposethe
ADO, at its option and as far as practicable, may create mechanisms to facilitate the delineation
process,suchastheorganizationofteamsoffacilitatorswhichmayinclude,amongothers,anNGO
representative chosen by the community, the Municipal Planning and Development Officer of the
localgovernmentunitswherethedomainorportionsthereofislocated,andrepresentativesfromthe
IP community whose domains are to be delineated. The ADO will ensure that the mechanisms
createdareadequatelysupportedfinanciallyandexpedientdelineationoftheancestraldomains.

36 Section 46(a), Republic Act No. 8371, provides that: "The Ancestral Domains Office (ADO) shall be

responsiblefortheofficialdelineationofancestraldomainsandlands.xxx"
37Rollo,p.81.
38Entitled,MaximoLapidv.CourtofAppeals,AnnexH,rollo,p.74.
39Suitstoquiettitlearecharacterizedasproceedingsquasiinrem.Technicallytheyareneitherinremnor

inpersonam.Inanactionquasiinrem,anindividualisnamedasdefendant.
40 Mario Dapnisan, Rodolfo Lachica, Silvestre Lorenzo and Timoteo Dapnisan, who are among the

respondentsinthepetitionherein,werealsoamongthepetitionersinG.R.No.118515,rollo,p.61.
41Porticv.Cristobal,G.R.No.156171,22April2005,456SCRA577,585.
42 [A] decree of registration and the certificate of title issued pursuant thereto may be attacked on the

groundofactualfraudwithinone(1)yearfromthedateofitsentry.Suchanattackmustbedirectandnot
by a collateral proceeding (Section 48, Presidential Decree No. 1526 Legarda, v. Saleeby, 31 Phil. 590
(1915)Ybaezv.IntermediateAppellateCourt,G.R.No.68291,6March1991,194SCRA743,749).The
validity of the certificate of title in this regard can be threshed out only in an action expressly filed for the
purpose.(Magayv.Estiandan,G.R.No.L28975,27February1976,69SCRA48Ybaezv.Intermediate
AppellateCourt,id.)
43NoblejasandNoblejas,RegistrationofLandTitlesandDeeds(1992RevisedEd.).
44BancoEspaolFilipinov.Palanca,37Phil.921(1918).
45Abadv.GovernmentofthePhilippines,103Phil.247,251(1958)
46Tichangcov.Enriquez,G.R.No.150629,30June2004,433SCRA324,337.
47Haliliv.CourtofIndustrialRelations,326Phil.982,992(1996)Hemedesv.CourtofAppeals,374Phil.

692, 713 (1999) Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 346 Phil. 506, 512 (1997) Payongayong v. Court of Appeals,
G.R.No.144576,28May2004,430SCRA210Baloloyv.Hular,G.R.No.157767,9September2004,438
SCRA80,92Pelayov.Perez,G.R.No.141323,8June2005,459SCRA475.
48Suntayv.Gocolay,G.R.No.144892,23September2005,470SCRA627,638.
49G.R.No.144101,16September2005,470SCRA92,97.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation