WETHER CARINO V.

INSULAR
WAS MODIFIED BY THE
CONSTITUTION
CARINO CASE IN RELATION TO IPRA LAW:

• It was one of the basis of the authors of ipra law in their

claims that Ancestral Domains and Ancestral Lands are
already owned and therefore they are considered private
and are not part of Public domains.
• ANCESTRAL DOMAINS= refers to all areas generally belonging to ICC’s/
IP’s comprising lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and natural resources
therein, held under claim of ownership,occupied,or possessed by ICC’s/
IP’s,by themselves or through their ancestors, communally or individually
since time immemorial, continuously to the present except when interrupted
by war, force majeure or displacement xxx.It shall include ancestral lands,
forests, pasture, residential, agricultural, and other lands individually
owned whether alienable and disposable or otherwise, hunting grounds,
xxx bodies of water, mineral and natural resources.
• ANCESTRAL LANDS= refers to lands occupied, possessed
and utilized by individuals, families, clans of the IIC’s/ IP’s
since time immemorial xxx under claims of individual or
traditional ownership, xxx including but not limited to,
residential lots. Rice terraces or paddies, private forest,
swidden farms and tree lots.
LEGAL BASES AND OPINIONS OF J.PANGANIBAN

• 1.The ratio in the case of Carino should be understood as

referring only to a means by which public agricultural land
maybe acquired by citizens.
2.That the claims of Petitioner Carino refers to
land ownership only, not to the natural resources
underneath or to the aerial and cosmic space
above.
In the case of Director of Land vs. CA the court rejected
a cultural minority member’s registration of land under
CA 141 Sec. 48(c) because the property to be
registered fell within the Central Cordillera Forest
Reserve quoting the Sol.Gen. statement that “The
construction given by the CA to the particular provision of
law involved, as to include even forest reserves as
susceptible to private appropriation is to
unconstitutionally apply such provision”.
Why unconstitutional?
1. Both 1973 and present 1987 Constitution do not include timber
or forest lands as alienable.

Sec.8 Article XIV 1973 Constitution States that “with the exception
of agricultural, industrial, commercial, residential, and resettlement
lands of the public domain, natural resources shall not be
alienated.”

Section 2 Article XII, 1987 Constitution expressly states that “with

the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall
not be alienated.”
Recent case of Gordula v, CA the court states that “Forest
land is incapable of registration, and its inclusion in a title
nullifies that title. To be sure, the defense of
indefeasibility of a certificate of title issued pursuant to a
free patent does not lie against the state in an action for
reservation of the land covered thereby when such land
is a part of a public forest or of forest reservation, the
patent covering forest land being void ab initio.”