Cruz Vs Secretary of DENR

Cruz vs Secretary of DENR voting remained the same.
Thus the petition was

Natural Resources and Environmental Law; dismissed and the questioned law was upheld to be
Constitutional Law; IPRA; Regalian Doctrine valid.
GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000 In the opinion of Justice Puno in his separate opinion, he
discussed that native title refers to ICCs/IPs' preconquest
FACTS: rights to lands and domains held under a claim of private
Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for ownership as far back as memory reaches. These lands
prohibition and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, are deemed never to have been public lands and are
assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of indisputably presumed to have been held that way since
Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known as the before the Spanish Conquest. The rights of ICCs/IPs to
Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its their ancestral domains (which also include ancestral
implementing rules and regulations (IRR). The petitioners lands) by virtue of native title shall be recognized and
assail certain provisions of the IPRA and its IRR on the respected.
ground that these amount to an unlawful deprivation of
the State’s ownership over lands of the public domain as Like a Torrens title, a CADT is evidence of private
well as minerals and other natural resources therein, in ownership of land by native title. Native title, however, is
violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in section 2, a right of private ownership peculiarly granted to
Article XII of the Constitution. ICCs/IPs over their ancestral lands and domains. The
IPRA categorically declares ancestral lands and domains
ISSUE: held by native title as never to have been public land.
Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution? Domains and lands held under native title are, therefore,
indisputably presumed to have never been public lands
HELD: and are private. (Exception to Regalian Doctrine).
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 NOTES 2:
natural resources within their ancestral domain. Petitioners here assail the constitutionality of IPRA and
Ownership over the natural resources in the ancestral its IRR on the ground that they amount to an unlawful
domains remains with the State and the rights granted deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of the
by the IPRA to the ICCs/IPs over the natural resources in public domain as well as minerals and other natural
their ancestral domains merely gives them, as owners resources therein, in violation of the Regalian doctrine.
and occupants of the land on which the resources are
found, the right to the small scale utilization of these The following were also question:
resources, and at the same time, a priority in their large • All-encompassing definition of ancestral lands and
scale development and exploitation. domains which might even include private lands found
within said area.
Additionally, ancestral lands and ancestral domains are • Powers of NCIP and making customary law applicable
not part of the lands of the public domain. They are to settlement of dispute violating the due process clause.
private lands and belong to the ICCs/IPs by native title,
which is a concept of private land title that existed Justice Puno opined that the law was to address the
irrespective of any royal grant from the State. However, centuries old neglect of the IPs and granted ownership
the right of ownership and possession by the ICCs/IPs of on the basis of native title. Domains and lands held
their ancestral domains is a limited form of ownership under native title are therefore, indisputably presumed
and does not include the right to alienate the same. to have never been public lands and are private.
• Ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not parts of

NOTES 1: the public domain.
This case assailed the constitutionality of RA 8371 and its • Petition was dismissed, RA 8371 is constitutional.
IRR on the ground that they amount to an unlawful
deprivation of the State’s ownership over the lands of
the public domain as well as the minerals and other
natural resources therein in violation of the Regalian
doctrine embodied in Section 2, Article XII of the
Constitution. In addition, they contended that the all-
encompassing definition of “ancestral domains” and
“ancestral lands” might even include private lands.
However, as the votes were equally divided 7 to 7, and
the necessary majority was not obtained, case was
redeliberated upon. However after redeliberation, the

Cruz Vs Secretary of DENR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cruz Vs Secretary of DENR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cruz Vs Secretary of DENR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cruz vs Secretary of DENR voting remained the same.

Thus the petition was

• Ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not parts of

You might also like