6.

Cruz vs Secretary of DENR

Natural Resources and Environmental Law; Constitutional Law; IPRA; Regalian Doctrine

GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000

FACTS:

Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for prohibition and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of
Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR). The petitioners assail
certain provisions of the IPRA and its IRR on the ground that these amount to an unlawful deprivation of the States ownership over lands of the public domain as well
as minerals and other natural resources therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.

ISSUE:

Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution?

HELD:

No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution. Examining the IPRA, there is nothing in the law that grants to the ICCs/IPs ownership over the natural
resources within their ancestral domain. Ownership over the natural resources in the ancestral domains remains with the State and the rights granted by the IPRA to
the ICCs/IPs over the natural resources in their ancestral domains merely gives them, as owners and occupants of the land on which the resources are found, the right
to the small scale utilization of these resources, and at the same time, a priority in their large scale development and exploitation.

Additionally, ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not part of the lands of the public domain. They are private lands and belong to the ICCs/IPs by native title,
which is a concept of private land title that existed irrespective of any royal grant from the State. However, the right of ownership and possession by the ICCs/IPs of
their ancestral domains is a limited form of ownership and does not include the right to alienate the same.
7. ACTING REGISTRARS OF LAND TITLES v. RTC

Facts:

- On November 5, 1985, the private respondent, Domingo Palomares, as administrator of the heirs of Delfin Casal, commenced suit with the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 132, Makati, Metro Manila for declaratory relief, quieting of title, cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 192, and cancellation of
entries upon Original Certificate of Title No. 291.

- Palomares had earlier come to this Court (February 27, 1985) on a similar petition, and in addition, to direct the Register of Deeds to issue a duplicate
owner's copy of Original Certificate of Title No. 291, embracing allegedly Hacienda de Maricaban, in lieu of the (alleged) lost one. On September 9, 1985,
the Court denied the petition for lack of merit.

- June 2, 1986, the private respondent filed a motion to admit amended complaint impleading the Republic of the Philippines and the registers of deeds of
Pasig, Makati, and Pasay City as parties-respondents, and alleging, among other things, that: (1) on October 1, 1906, the Court of Land Registration (James
Ostrand, Presiding Judge) confirmed the title of Dolores Pascual Casal y Ochoa, a native of Madrid, Spain, over the 2,574-hectare parcel above-mentioned;
(6) the State itself, by placing 27,213,255 square meters thereof under a military reservation (Fort McKinley, now Fort Bonifacio), by Proclamation No. 423,
and fifty hectares thereof pursuant to Proclamation No. 192, had been guilty of landgrabbing;

- August 29, 1986, the respondent judge issued a temporary restraining order, directing the petitioners to cease and desist from performing the acts
complained of.

- In a subsequent memorandum, the petitioners alleged that Dolores Casal had conveyed the property to the Government of the United States in 1906 and
the Manila Railroad Company on which Judge Ostrand, the Presiding Judge of the Court of Land Registration, later Justice of this Court had stamped his
imprimatur.

- October 12, 1987, the respondent court issued an order in the tenor, as follows:

- No other opposition having been registered, this Court hereby resolves to grant the plaintiffs' prayer in the OMNIBUS MOTION in order to safeguard the
integrity of the land embraced in OCT 291, hereby authorizing for this purpose the plaintiff Domingo C. Palomares:
- The petitioners filed a notice of appeal; the respondent court, however, denied it,[3] "it being directed against ... an interlocutory order ..."[4]

- Hence, this recourse.

Issue: Whether or not respondent Court can validly decide before trial in favor of private respondent the ownership and possession of the 25,743,514
square meters (of) land known as "Hacienda de Maricaban", which is the main issue in this case;

Held:
- The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the hectarage embraced by TCT No. 192 (OCT No. 291) consists of Government property. Three things
persuade the Court: (1) the decrees of Proclamations Nos. 192 and 435; (2) the incontrovertible fact that OCT No. 291 has been duly cancelled; and (3) the
decision of the Court of Appeals in AC-G.R. CV No. 00293, affirming the decision of Hon. Gregorio Pineda, Judge of the then Court of First Instance of Rizal,
Branch XXI, in LRC (GLRO) Rec. No. 2484, Case No. R-1467 thereof, entitled "In Re: Issuance of Owner's Duplicate of Certificate of Title No. 291," as well as
our own Resolution in G.R. No. 69834, entitled "Domingo Palomares, et al., v. Intermediate Appellate Court
- Proclamation No. 192 ("RESERVING FOR THE VETERANS CENTER SITE PURPOSES CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN SITUATED IN THE
PROVINCE OF RIZAL, ISLAND OF LUZON") and Proclamation No. 423 ("RESERVING FOR MILITARY PURPOSES CERTAIN PARCELS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
SITUATED IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF PASIG, TAGUIG, AND PARAAQUE, PROVINCE OF RIZAL, AND PASAY CITY") have the character of official assertions of
ownership, and the presumption is that they have been issued by right of sovereignty and in the exercise of the State's dominical authority. We take not
only judicial notice thereof[6] but accept the same as a valid asseveration of regalian right over property.

- With respect to the premises occupied by the Libingan ng mga Bayani, Ninoy Aquino International Airport, Nayong Pilipino, the Population Commission,
National Science and Development Board, and the National Housing Authority, we do not have the slightest doubt that they stand on Government
property by sheer presumption that, unless otherwise shown, what the Government occupies is what the Government owns.
- While there is no presumption that property is Government property until otherwise shown, because the law recognizes private ownership, thus:

- Art. 425. Property of private ownership, besides the patrimonial property of the State, provinces, cities, and municipalities, consists of all property
belonging to private persons, either individually or collectively.

- The Court has no doubt that Judge Velez is here guilty of grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction to warrant certiorari. As
above-stated, what he gave away, by virtue of reconveyance, was property that inalienably belongs to the Government or its successors. Worse, he gave
away property without notice to the actual possessors, that is, the present registered owner. It is beyond debate, as we have indicated, that the land had
been, since the cancellation of OCT No. 291, parcelled out to a succession of buyers and owners. In the absence of notice, it acquired no jurisdiction to
decree redelivery or reconveyance. It is well-established that owners of property over which reconveyance is asserted are indispensable parties, without
whom no relief is available and without whom the court can render no valid judgment.