FIRST DIVISION "unbroken, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and cultivation"6

of the lands therein until their relocation in 1977.

July 6, 2015
In 1973, the Bureau of Lands started to survey Calauit. After some time, the
G.R. No. 156022 surveyors met some resistance to the continued survey, but the settlers
were told that it was being done for purposes of titling the latter’s
AURELLANO AGNES, EDUARDO AGNES, ESPIRITU AGNES, ESTELLA AGNES, landholdings, as well as to determine how much land may be apportioned
PANTALEON AGNES, FILOTEO APUEN, IMELDA APUEN, MOISES APUEN, for people coming from Busuanga who were to be relocated in the area in
ROGELIO APUEN, GONZALO AUSTRIA, JAVIER AUSTRIA, BONIFACIO view of the establishment of the Yulo King Ranch. In 1975, however, the
EGUIA, LYDIA EGUIA, MANUEL GABARDA, SR., MELECIO GARCIA, settlers were told that the supposed titling of their landholdings was not
CRISTOBAL LOQUIB, MARIA LOQUIB, MATERNO LOQUIB, GEORGE going to push through as the island was going to be set up as a zoo for rare
MACANAS, MODESTO MANLEBTEN, JUANITO AUSTRIA, CONCHITA BERNAL, and exotic animals from other countries.7 Further, they were told that
AURELIO BERNAL, PABLITO BOGANTE, FELICIANO CANTON, ALFREDO instead, they would be resettled in Halsey and Burabod in Culion, where the
CANETE, CECILIA CANETE, CHERRY DE MESA, ROBERTO NOVERO, PERLITO lands were claimed to be more fertile and where full government services
PABIA, RODRIGO SABROSO, JUAN T,ALORDA, and RAFAELA TRADIO, and facilities such as irrigation, electricity, waterworks, public markets,
Petitioners, roads, housing, school, and health care, would be provided by the
vs. government.8
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
The petitioners alleged that, along with the other settlers, they could not
RESOLUTION refuse the offer because they were harassed and intimidated by members of
the Philippine Constabulary (PC). In their petition and answers to written
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: interrogatories, they mentioned instances of violence and harassment by PC
soldiers.9 They were also told that they had no choice but to leave Calauit,
Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 essentially seeking the as the island was government property and that, as illegal settlers, they
reversal of the April 24, 2002 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. could be sued.10
CV No. 46222, entitled "Republic of the Philippines v. Agnes, et al.," which
affirmed the February 23, 1994 Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) The terms of the proposed relocation was later embodied in individual
of Palawan, Branch 49, Fourth Judicial Region, Puerto Princesa City in Civil Resettlement Agreements11 wherein the government, through the Secretary
Case No. 2262, entitled "Republic of the Philippines v. Aurellano Agnes, et of Natural Resources, among other things, undertook to provide the
al." signatory settler the following: (1) an agricultural lot in exchange for the
area he would be vacating; and (2) payment for the improvements on the
The facts, as culled from the records, are as follows: properties to be vacated, as ascertained in individualized appraisal sheets.12
In exchange, the signatory settler agreed to (1) be resettled to any selected
Calauit Island (Calauit) is a 3,600-hectare island that forms part of the resettlement area in Busuanga; (2) relinquish "totally his rights and claim
Calamianes Island group in the Province of Palawan. (sic) over the land thereon in favor of the Government;" and (3) vacate the
premises upon receipt of fifty percent (50%) of the total amount of the
The petitioners claim to be among the more than 250 families ("settlers") appraised value of the improvements, with the other half to be paid upon
who lived in Calauit4 as successors of the early settlers therein. They are proof of actual evacuation from the property.13
members of the "Balik Calauit Movement," which was organized for the
purpose of reclaiming the lands they used to occupy. The settlers lay claim On August 31, 1976, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos (Pres. Marcos)
on the lands of Calauit either (1) through a predecessor, who had become a signed Presidential Proclamation No. 1578, which declared the Island of
titled owner by virtue of Act No. 926;5 or (2) by means of an imperfect title, Calauit as a Game Preserve and Wildlife Sanctuary, viz.:
which they, by themselves or their ancestors, had acquired by way of
PROCLAMATION NO. 1578
Thereafter, the Department of Natural Resources14 (DNR) established the
DECLARING AS A GAME PRESERVE AND WILDLIFE SANCTUARY A CERTAIN Calauit Special Project (CSP) to manage and operate the Calauit Sanctuary.
PARCEL OF LAND OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN EMBRACED AND SITUATED IN
THE ISLAND OF CALAUIT, MUNICIPALITY OF NEW BUSUANGA, ISLAND OF On March 11, 1977, President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1626,
BUSUANGA, PROVINCE OF PALAWAN. declaring certain portions of the Culion Leper Colony Reservation excluded
from the Reservation and opening them to disposition under the provisions
Upon recommendation of the Secretary of Natural Resources and pursuant of the Public Land Act. These portions, known as Halsey and Burabod,
to the authority vested in me by law, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President became the resettlement areas for the settlers of Calauit.
of the Philippines, do hereby withdraw from sale, settlement, exploration or
exploitation and set aside and declare, subject to private rights, if any there In 1981, the Presidential Committee for the Conservation of the Tamaraw
be, as a Game Preserve and Wildlife sanctuary a certain parcel of land of the (PCCT) absorbed the CSP; and in 1985, it entered into a contract with the
public domain embraced and situated in the island of Calauit, Municipality of Conservation and Resource Management Foundation, Inc. (CRMF) to carry
New Busuanga, island of Busuanga, province of Palawan, which tract of land out the functions of the CSP.
is more particularly described as follows:
According to petitioners, life in the resettlement areas was unbearable. They
"A parcel of land (Calauit Island) bounded on the North by Mindoro Strait; claimed that the lands in Halsey and Burabod were unsuitable for habitation
on the East by Mindoro Strait; on the South by the Municipality of New and agriculture; and that the government failed to comply with the promised
Busuanga, Palawan and Illultuk Bay; and on the West by the South China services and facilities.15
Sea; situated in the Municipality of New Busuanga, Calamianes Group,
Province of Palawan, Island of Busuanga; containing an area of THREE After the EDSA People Power and the ouster of Pres. Marcos, the settlers
THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED (3,400) HECTARES, more or less." formed the "Balik Calauit Movement," and aired their collective grievances to
the new administration of then President Corazon C. Aquino (Pres.
NOTE: These data are approximate and subject to future survey. Aquino).16

The hunting, wounding, taking or killing within said territory of any wild Some of the settlers tried to return to the Island but were driven away by
animals or birds and/or the destruction of any vegetation or any act causing the CRMF; thus, they went to the Philippine Commission on Human Rights
disturbance to the habitat of the wildlife herein protected are hereby (PCHR) to file a complaint against the government and CRMF. A fact-finding
prohibited. commission was established by the PCHR and dialogues were held among
the parties. On February 17 and 23, 1987, the fact-finding commission
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the submitted two memoranda17 recommending (1) the repeal of Proclamation
Republic of the Philippines to be affixed. No. 1578 for being violative of the settlers’ Bill of Rights; and (2) the
immediate return of the settlers to Calauit.
Done in the City of Manila, this 31st day of August in the year of Our Lord,
nineteen hundred and seventy-six. In June 1987, the petitioners, with the other settlers, once again tried to
return to Calauit, with success this time around.
(SGD.) FERDINAND E. MARCOS
President of the Philippines Meantime, the PCHR referred the aforementioned complaint to then DNR
Secretary Fulgencio Factoran, who, on July 14, 1987 issued an Order18
By the President: directing the settlers who returned to Calauit to "immediately vacate the
sanctuary and return to their resettlement areas of Halsey [and] Burabod."
(SGD.) JUAN C. TUVERA
Presidential Assistant
In response to the above Order, the concerned settlers filed a Petition for Halsey and Burabod.24 The Office of the President ultimately denied said
Certiorari with this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 80034, entitled "Reynaldo appeal.
Rufino, et al. v. Hon. Secretary Fulgencio Factoran, et al." In a Resolution19
dated February 16, 1988, this Court dismissed the petition for being factual Some of the settlers failed to comply with Secretary Factoran’s July 14, 1987
in nature, to wit: Order to vacate Calauit; thus, the Republic of the Philippines (herein
respondent), represented by the DENR Secretary, filed a Complaint for
G.R. No. 80034 (Reynaldo Rufino, et al. vs. Hon. Secretary Fulgencio Specific Performance and Recovery of Possession with Prayer for Preliminary
Factoran, et al.). It appearing from the allegations and arguments of the Injunction against herein petitioners before the RTC, Branch 49, Puerto
parties in their respective pleadings that the issues presented to the Court Princesa City.25 The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 2262, entitled
for determination are mainly factual in nature, among them the manner of "Republic of the Philippines v. Aurellano Agnes, et al."
the petitioners’ transfer from Calawit to Halsey and Burabod, the conditions
obtaining in the places to which they have been relocated, the terms and In said Complaint, herein respondent alleged that the petitioners’
conditions of their resettlement, including the benefits, if any, extended to repossession and reoccupation of portions of Calauit are patently unlawful
them by the government, the number of persons involved in the Back-to- and grossly reproachable as they had already waived and relinquished
Calawit Movement, and whether or not there have really been violations of whatever rights they had on the island when they signed and executed their
human rights against the petitioners, the Court, not being a trier of facts, respective Resettlement Agreements. The respondent claimed that by
Resolved to DISMISS the petition, without prejudice to the filing by the returning to Calauit, the petitioners breached their contracts, the
petitioners of the appropriate action before the regional trial court for trial Resettlement Agreements, which they voluntarily and freely executed.
and determination of the said factual issues.20 Moreover, by virtue of Proclamation No. 1578, which closed Calauit to
exploitation and settlement, the respondent contended that the petitioners
On March 10, 1988, the petitioners filed a petition with the RTC, Branch 134, are staying on the island as "squatters" on public land. The respondent also
Makati, Metro Manila, docketed as Civil Case No. 88-298, entitled "Reynaldo complained of the great damage and disturbance the petitioners were doing
Rufino, et al. v. Hon. Fulgencio Factoran, et al.," for the issuance of a to the natural resources and the protected animals in Calauit.26
preliminary injunction against the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR), to enjoin the latter from implementing Secretary In their "Answer with Counterclaims,"27 herein petitioners alleged that the
Factoran’s July 14, 1987 Order, and for the declaration of nullity of Resettlement Agreements were executed with deceit, intimidation,
Proclamation No. 1578 for being unconstitutional.21 misrepresentation, and fraud; hence they are illegal and void. They also
contested their admissibility on the ground that they are private documents,
In an Order dated April 6, 1988, the RTC of Makati, denied the motion for which have not been authenticated. They also claim that it was actually the
the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, and upheld the respondent who breached its contract by providing poor resettlement areas,
constitutionality of Proclamation No. 1578.22 which resulted in their subhuman and marginal existence. The petitioners
denied causing damage to the island and the animals in Calauit, as they only
On April 17, 1989, the RTC of Makati issued another Order23 dismissing the occupied the coastal areas, away from the animals’ roaming grounds and
case without prejudice, to wit: habitat. The petitioners then prayed for the nullification of the Resettlement
Agreements for having been procured through violence, intimidation, deceit,
On motion of counsel for defendants and there being no objection on the misrepresentation, and fraud. In the alternative, they called for the
part of counsel for the plaintiffs, the instant case is hereby ordered rescission of the contracts for respondent’s material breach of its obligations.
dismissed without prejudice. Lastly, they asked for Twenty-Five Thousand (P25,000.00) Pesos each as
temperate, exemplary, and moral damages.
The foregoing Order was prompted by petitioners’ manifestation that they
had a pending appeal before the Office of the President relative to the July Ruling of the RTC
14, 1987 Order of DENR Secretary Factoran directing the petitioners and the
other settlers to leave Calauit and return to their resettlement areas in
On February 23, 1994, the RTC of Puerto Princesa City rendered a Decision, The petitioners sought the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the RTC’s decision in
the dispositive portion of which reads: their Appeal docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 46222, entitled "Republic of the
Philippines v. Aurellano Agnes, et al."
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby orders the defendants (with the exception of
Alfredo Aunang, Juana Apuen, Eufricinia Bello, Bartolome Darol, Eduardo de Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Mesa, Aurora Eco, Eleuterio Fresnillo, Jovita Gabarda, Fausto Lledo, Pampilo
Sabroso, Ismael, Rafaela and Regalado Tradio)28 and anyone claiming In a Decision promulgated on April 24, 2002, the Court of Appeals affirmed
under them to vacate the respective areas where they have resettled at the assailed ruling of the RTC, viz.:
Calauit Island, Busuanga, Palawan.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed Decision dated February
Plaintiff-Republic through the Secretary of the Department of Natural 23, 1994, of the Regional Trial Court of Palawan and Puerto Princesa City,
Resources, is ordered to procure another suitable Relocation Sites for Branch 49, Fourth Judicial Regional, Palawan docketed as Civil Case No.
defendants within six months from receipt of this Decision.29 2262, is hereby AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.32

The RTC held that the Resettlement Agreements, being duplicates of the The Court of Appeals concurred in the findings and conclusions of the RTC.
originals and records of the Republic of the Philippines, are public In addition, it disputed the petitioners’ claim of ownership on the lands of
documents notwithstanding their lack of notarization. As such, they are Calauit; and held that absent any proof to the contrary, the presumption
admissible in evidence even if the parties’ signatures were not that Calauit is of public domain and thus belongs to the State stands. The
authenticated. The RTC also held that the vices of consent allegedly Court of Appeals explained its pronouncement in this wise:
attached to the Resettlement Agreements would have served to render the
agreements merely voidable and not void. However, the four-year period Pursuant to [Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution], all lands of the
within which the petitioners could bring an action for annulment had long public domain belong to the State, and that the State is the source of any
prescribed. On the issue of rescission, the RTC held that even assuming that asserted right to ownership in land and charged with the conservation of
the petitioners had grounds for rescission, they "could not unilaterally such patrimony. Corollarily, all lands not otherwise appearing to be within
rescind the agreements, since the right to rescind must be invoked private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Ergo, a positive act
judicially."30 of the government is needed to declassify a forest land into alienable or
disposable land for agricultural or other purposes. x x x. Therefore, to
The RTC, in deciding against the petitioners’ return to Calauit, proclaimed: acquire ownership of public land, the same must first be released from its
original classification and reclassified as alienable or disposable land. In the
National Interest in the preservation of Calauit as Game Preserve and absence of such classification, the land remains unclassified public land until
Sanctuary is the overriding factor which argues against the right of released therefrom and rendered open to disposition. Thus, the burden of
[petitioners] to return to Calauit. Assuming that the Resettlement Areas proof in overcoming the presumption of state ownership of land lies upon
provided by [Respondent]-Republic did not measure up to the expectations the claimant. x x x.
of [petitioners], the recourse was not to renege on their Agreements by
returning to Calauit and contributing to the disturbance or destruction of the xxxx
Preserve, but to demand that [Respondent] deliver the fair value of the
properties they vacated. x x x [T]he law itself stated that only alienable and disposable lands,
particularly agricultural lands, can be acquired through possession and
[Respondent]-Republic is not entirely free from blame for what appears to occupation for at least 30 years. Since the subject property is still
have been an unwise choice of Relocation Sites and should be given an unclassified when [the petitioners] and their ancestors occupied the same,
opportunity to rectify the mistake.31 whatever possession they or their predecessors may have had and however
long, cannot ripen into private ownership. Moreover, the fact that the
disputed property may have been declared for taxation purposes in the
names of [petitioners] or their predecessors-in-interest does not necessarily RUNS COUNTER TO THE CONTROLLING CASE OF Sta. Monica Industrial and
prove ownership. This is due to the fact that tax declarations and receipts Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals INVOLVING CLOSELY SIMILAR
are not conclusive evidence of ownership or of the right to possess land FACTS.38
when not supported by evidence or other persuasive proof to substantiate
their claim. They are merely indicia of a claim of ownership.
V. THE COURT A QUO VIOLATED THE BASIC RULES OF EVIDENCE AND
Considering that the [petitioners] failed to present convincing evidence and CONTRAVENED SETTLED JURISPRUDENCE IN ADMITTING THE
persuasive proof to substantiate their claim, the presumption of State UNNOTARIZED RESETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS IN DISPUTE DESPITE THE
ownership stands. It is also well to note that the bases of [respondent]’s FACT THAT NOT A SINGLE WITNESS WAS PRESENTED TO DISCLOSE THEIR
superior right of possession and ownership was sufficiently supported both SOURCE AND TO ATTEST TO THEIR DUE EXECUTION AND DESPITE THE
by law and jurisprudence.33 (Citations omitted.) ABSENCE OF THE OFFICIAL APPROVALS REQUIRED FOR THEIR
COMPLETENESS AS OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS.39
The petitioners moved for the reconsideration34 of the aforequoted
Decision, which was subsequently denied in a Resolution35 dated November VI. THE DECISION HAS IGNORED THE UNREBUTTED TESTIMONIAL
18, 2002. EVIDENCE AND THE DOCUMENTED ADMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT
ESTABLISHING THE VIOLENCE, THREATS, FRAUD AND DECEIT EMPLOYED
Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari premised on the following TO COMPEL PETITIONERS TO SUBMIT TO THEIR RELOCATION, AND
assignments of error: WARRANTING A DECLARATION OF THE NULLITY OF THE RESETTLEMENT
AGREEMENTS, ASSUMING THEIR EXECUTION BY PETITIONERS.
Issues
VII. THE COURT A QUO FURTHER IGNORED THE UNCONTROVERTED
I. THE COURT A QUO’S RULING REJECTING PETITIONERS’ CLAIMS OF TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE AND THE DOCUMENTED ADMISSIONS OF
OWNERSHIP OF THE LANDHOLDINGS IN DISPUTE, ABSENT "POSITIVE" RESPONDENT, ESTABLISHING THE NON-ARABLE CHARACTER OF THE
PROOF OF ALIENABILITY THEREOF, IS CONTRARY NOT ONLY TO THE LANDS ALLOTTED TO PETITIONERS IN THE RESETTLEMENT SITES AND
APPLICABLE LAW AND THE CONTROLLING DECISIONS OF THIS THE SUBHUMAN CONDITIONS PREVAILING THEREIN WHICH JUSTIFIED
HONORABLE COURT BUT TO THE UNCONTROVERTED DOCUMENTARY THE UNILATERAL RESCISSION OF THE RESETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS,
EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND THE RESPONDENT’S ADMISSIONS AS WELL. ASSUMING ARGUENDO THEIR EXECUTION BY PETITIONERS.40

II. IN REJECTING THE PETITIONERS’ CLAIMS OF OWNERSHIP OF THE VIII. THE TRIAL COURT AND [THE] COURT OF APPEALS HA[VE] ABUSED
LANDHOLDINGS IN DISPUTE, THE COURT A QUO HAS GONE BEYOND THE THEIR DISCRETION IN GRANTING RESPONDENT THE RIGHT TO EVICT
ISSUES RAISED BY RESPONDENT AND HAS IN EFFECT COLLATERALLY PETITIONERS AGAIN AND TO HAVE THEM RELOCATED IN "A MORE
ATTACKED AND NULLIFIED THE CERTIFICATES OF TITLE IN THE NAMES SUITABLE" RESETTLEMENT SITE.41
OF PETITIONERS’ ANCESTORS, CONTRARY TO ESTABLISHED
JURISPRUDENCE.36 IX. IN DENYING PETITIONERS’ CLAIM FOR DAMAGES THE COURT A QUO
HAS OVERLOOKED AND IGNORED THE UNCONTRADICTED FACTS OF THE
III. THE COURT A QUO’S IMPOSITION OF THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PRESENT CASE.42
PRESENTATION OF AN EXECUTIVE DECLARATION OF ALIENABILITY AS A
CONDITION TO THE RECOGNITION OF PETITIONERS’ ALREADY Initially, this petition was denied in a Resolution43 dated February 3, 2003
PERFECTED CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND for noncompliance with the Rules of Court, to wit:
APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THIS HONORABLE COURT.37
ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to DENY the petition for review on
IV. THE COURT A QUO’S RULING WITHHOLDING RECOGNITION OF certiorari of the decision dated April 24, 2002 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
PETITIONERS’ PERFECTED CLAIMS TO THEIR CALAUIT LANDHOLDINGS G.R. CV No. 46222 for failure to comply with requirement no. three (3), as
the copy of the assailed decision submitted is not duly certified as a true KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
copy thereof. Also, it lacks a written explanation why the service or filing
thereof was not done personally [Section 11, Rule 13, Rules of Civil WHEREAS, pursuant to the mandates of the 1987 Philippine Constitution to
Procedure]. protect the rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities to their ancestral
lands and domains, respect and preserve their culture and ensure their
In any event, even if the petition complied with the aforesaid requirements, economic, social and cultural well-being, and in accordance with the
it would still be denied, as petitioners failed to show that a reversible error provisions of R.A. 8371, ‘AN ACT TO RECOGNIZE AND PROMOTE THE
had been committed by the appellate court. RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES/ INDIGENOUS
PEOPLES, CREATING THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS
The petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration44 on March 19, 2003, PEOPLES, ESTABLISHING IMPLEMENTING MECHANISMS, APPROPRIATING
which this Court denied with finality on April 7, 2003.45 FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,’ the members of the
indigenous Cultural Community/ies belonging to the TAGBANUA ***
On June 2, 2003, the petitioners filed a Motion to Admit Second Motion for indigenous peoples, located at Municipality of Busuanga, Province of
Reconsideration with their Second Motion for Reconsideration, wherein their Palawan and comprising the communities of Barangays Calauit and Quezon,
"pro bono" counsels pleaded for leniency for "their shortcomings."46 From Calauit Island, Municipality of Busuanga, Province of Palawan, having
June 2 to 20, 2003, the Court received several pleadings47 from various continuously occupied, possessed and utilized, since time immemorial, under
lawyers who were entering their appearances as collaborating pro bono a claim of ownership certain ancestral domain situated in Municipality of
counsels for the petitioners and who manifested that they were adopting the Busuanga, Province of Palawan, Island of Luzon, Philippines containing an
Second Motion for Reconsideration filed on June 2, 2003. area of Three Thousand Six Hundred Eighty-Three and 2324/10000
(3,683.2324) hectares more or less, more particularly bounded and
On June 9, 2003, the Bishop of the Apostolic Vicariate of Taytay, Palawan, described on Page 2 hereof are hereby recognized of their rights thereto.
also wrote then Chief Justice Hilario Davide to plead for the admission of the
Second Motion for Reconsideration filed by the petitioners, whom he claimed
were under his pastoral jurisdiction as he was their parish priest in 1977- NOW THEREFORE, said Indigenous Cultural Community of TAGBANUA***
1978 and 1985-1989.48 Indigenous Peoples, whose members at the time of this issuance appear
hereunder as Annex A, is hereby issued this Certificate of Ancestral Domain
In consideration of all the above pleadings, in a Resolution dated June 25, Title:
2003, this Court resolved to: (1) grant the petitioners’ motion to admit their
Second Motion for Reconsideration; (2) set aside its February 3, 2003 TO HAVE AND TO HOLD IN OWNERSHIP, the above described ancestral
Resolution; (3) reinstate the present petition; (4) require the respondent to domain as their private but community property, which belongs to all
comment to the petition; and (5) note the other pleadings and letters filed generations of the said Indigenous Cultural Community/Indigenous Peoples.
before it.49
TO DEVELOP, CONTROL, MANAGE and UTILIZE COLLECTIVELY the said
In the meantime, on March 25, 2008, pursuant to Republic Act No. 8371, ANCESTRAL DOMAIN with all the rights, privileges and responsibilities
entitled "The Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997," the Office of the appurtenant thereto, subject to the condition that the said ancestral domain
President, through the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples shall NOT be SOLD, DISPOSED, nor DESTROYED.
(NCIP),50 issued a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) No. R04-
BUS-0308-06251 over 3,683.2324 hectares of land in the Municipality of IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, and by authority of R.A. 8371, the National
Busuanga, Province of Palawan, in favor of the Tagbanua Indigenous Commission on Indigenous Peoples, hereby causes these letters to be made
Cultural Community, which comprised the communities of Barangays Calauit patent and the seal of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples to be
and Quezon, Calauit Island, and Municipality of Busuanga. The pertinent hereunto affixed.
portions of the CADT read as follows:
Issued in Quezon City, Philippines on this 25th day of March, 2008.52
 titles. They are Eduardo Agnes, Espiritu Agnes, Pantaleon Agnes, Filatea
In view of the foregoing development on October 19, 2011, this Court issued Apuen, Juana Apuen, Moises Apuen, Alfredo Aunang, Javier Austria, Aurelio
a Resolution53 requiring the parties "to move in the premises by informing Bernal, Pablito Bogante, Alfredo Canete, Bartolome Darol, Melecia Garcia,
the Court, within ten (10) days from notice, of supervening events and/or Modesto Manlebten, Roberto Novero, Perlita Pabia, Pampilo Sabroso,
subsequent developments pertinent to the case which may be of help to the Rodrigo Sabroso, Ismael Tradio, Regalado Tradio, and Tirso Ustares, Jr.
Court in its immediate disposition x x x." aside from other land areas they have acquired in Busuanga, Palawan x x x.

The petitioners, in a Manifestation,54 emphasized at the outset that no 5. Recent documents acquired from National Commission on Indigenous
event has transpired, which may have rendered the case herein moot and Peoples (NCIP)-Provincial Office, Puerto Princesa City particularly the
academic. The petitioners reiterated that the relief they are after is their photocopied technical descriptions of the awarded Ancestral Domain showed
individual titles to the areas they are currently occupying in the Calauit that the Island of Calauit as plotted by this Office was covered by Certificate
Island. of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) R04-BUS-0308-062 bearing CADT-Lot No.
1-Ade-0403-005-Gni covering 3,572.9731 hectares, more or less aside from
And, in their Compliance55 the petitioners averred further that the issuance other islets included known as Lot No. 2-Maltanobong Island-Ade-0403-005,
of the CADT "in favor of the Tagbanua Indigenous Cultural Community Lot. No. 3-Dimipac Island-Ade-0403-005-Gni, Lot No. 4-Ade-0403-005-Gni,
amounts to an affirmation and recognition of the property rights of their and Lot No. 5-Ade-0403-005-Gni with corresponding areas which are
ancestors from whom [they] traced their present individual claims." Thus, adjacent to Calauit Island x x x.
the petitioners claim that there is factual and legal bases for this Court to
proceed and confirm their right of ownership over the subject properties in 6. At present, [a] certain Roy Dabuit is the Acting Chairman of the Tagbanua
the Calauit Island. Indigenous Cultural Community who is the recipient of the said CADT in
Calauit Island and other islets.
On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) for the
respondent Republic of the Philippines manifested that per Memorandum 7. Furthermore, the undersigned was able to take pictures on the portions of
dated March 5, 2012 by the Regional Executive Director, DENR- Calauit Island which were occupied by the BCM and Indigenous People
IVMIMAROPA, the following are the updates on the ground: belonging to the Tagbanua Tribe. They have built houses made of light
materials, school (elementary and day care), small causeway and tribal hall.
3. Verification made by this office on the status of occupation of the Balik
Calauit Movement (BCM) as stated in Civil Case No. 2262 particularly the 8. Moreover, the Calauit Preserve and Wildlife Sanctuary still exist in the
forty-seven (47) defendants (Aurellano Agnes, et al.) and as confirmed by Island of Calauit and placed under the management of the Provincial
Bgy. Chairman Gabarda of Bgy. Buluang Busuanga, Palawan wherein Calauit Government of Palawan thru an Executive Order. The issuance of CADT over
Island is a Sitio of said Barangay, disclosed that forty (40) are at present in Calauit Island including the Calauit Preserve and Wildlife Sanctuary under
the Calauit Island and seven (7) are outside Calauit Island. The latter are Presidential Proclamation 1578 is another current problem.56
Eufricina Bello, Cherry Demesa, Eduardo Demesa, Jovita Gabarda, Manuel
Gabarda, Sr., Ismael Tradio and Rafaella Tradio who settled to adjacent and Thus, the OSG submitted that "the instant petition must be decided on the
other Barangay[s] of Busuanga, Palawan. Further, of the forty-seven (47) merits considering that the area in dispute remains to be a Game and
BCM members, nine (9) of them were already dead (Juana Apuen, Javier Wildlife Preserve and petitioners persist on their illegal occupation
Austria, Conchita Barcebal, Aurora Eco, Lydia Equia, Fausto Lledo, Materno thereof."57
Loquib, George Macanas and Juan Talorda) and one (1) was put in jail
(Bonifacio Equia) at the Provincial Jail in Puerto Princesa City x x x. Notwithstanding the matters raised by the petitioners in this case, a review
of the Complaint, Answer with Counterclaims, and the rest of the record of
4. During the resettlement of BCM, Barangay[s] Halsey and Burabod in the instant petition readily reveals that the fundamental issue of the
Culion, Palawan are the barangay[s] which were identified as resettlement controversy between the parties may be summed up into these: whether or
sites.1âwphi1 With this, some BCM members have applied and awarded with not the Resettlement Agreements are valid; and, more importantly, whether
or not the petitioners may be compelled to vacate Calauit by virtue of their project, government or private, that will affect or impact upon the ancestral
obligations enumerated in the Resettlement Agreements. domains and to receive just and fair compensation for any damages which
they may sustain as a result of the project; and the right to effective
Ruling of this Court measures by the government to prevent any interference with, alienation
and encroachment upon these rights;
With the issuance by the Office of the President of the CADT, an ostensive
successor to the Resettlement Agreements, to the Tagbanua Indigenous c. Right to Stay in the Territories - The right to stay in the territory and not
Cultural Community (ICC), the resolution of the question on the propriety or to be removed therefrom. No ICCs/IPs will be relocated without their free
impropriety of the latter contract and their effects on the continued stay of and prior informed consent, nor through any means other than eminent
the settlers on Calauit appears to have been rendered moot and academic. domain. Where relocation is considered necessary as an exceptional
measure, such relocation shall take place only with the free and prior
Under the CADT, the Tagbanua ICC is given authority "TO HAVE AND HOLD informed consent of the ICCs/IPs concerned and whenever possible, they
IN OWNERSHIP, the x x x described ancestral domain as their private but shall be guaranteed the right to return to their ancestral domains, as soon
community property, which belongs to all generations of the said Indigenous as the grounds for relocation cease to exist. When such return is not
Cultural Community/Indigenous Peoples"; and "TO DEVELOP, CONTROL, possible, as determined by agreement or through appropriate procedures,
MANAGE and UTILIZE COLLECTIVELY the said ANCESTRAL DOMAIN with all ICCs/IPs shall be provided in all possible cases with lands of quality and
the rights, privileges and responsibilities appurtenant thereto, subject to the legal status at least equal to that of the land previously occupied by them,
condition that the said ancestral domain shall NOT be SOLD, DISPOSED, nor suitable to provide for their present needs and future development. Persons
DESTROYED." thus relocated shall likewise be fully compensated for any resulting loss or
injury;
To be precise, Section 7 of Republic Act No. 8371 recognizes that the rights
to ancestral domains carry with it the rights of ownership and possession of d. Right in Case of Displacement. - In case displacement occurs as a result
ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains, which shall include the following: of natural catastrophes, the State shall endeavor to resettle the displaced
ICCs/IPs in suitable areas where they can have temporary life support
Section 7. Rights to Ancestral Domains. - The rights of ownership and systems: Provided, That the displaced ICCs/IPs shall have the right to return
possession of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains shall be recognized and to their abandoned lands until such time that the normalcy and safety of
protected. Such rights shall include: such lands shall be determined: Provided, further, That should their
ancestral domain cease to exist and normalcy and safety of the previous
a. Rights of Ownership.- The right to claim ownership over lands, bodies of settlements are not possible, displaced ICCs/IPs shall enjoy security of
water traditionally and actually occupied by ICCs/IPs, sacred places, tenure over lands to which they have been resettled: Provided, furthermore,
traditional hunting and fishing grounds, and all improvements made by them That basic services and livelihood shall be provided to them to ensure that
at any time within the domains; their needs are adequately addressed;

b. Right to Develop Lands and Natural Resources. – Subject to Section 56 e. Right to Regulate Entry of Migrants. - Right to regulate the entry of
hereof, right to develop, control and use lands and territories traditionally migrant settlers and organizations into the domains;
occupied, owned, or used; to manage and conserve natural resources within
the territories and uphold the responsibilities for future generations; to f. Right to Safe and Clean Air and Water. - For this purpose, the ICCs/IPs
benefit and share the profits from allocation and utilization of the natural shall have access to integrated systems for the management of their inland
resources found therein; the right to negotiate the terms and conditions for waters and air space;
the exploration of natural resources in the areas for the purpose of ensuring
ecological, environmental protection and the conservation measures, g. Right to Claim Parts of Reservations. - The right to claim parts of the
pursuant to national and customary laws; the right to an informed and ancestral domains which have been reserved for various purposes, except
intelligent participation in the formulation and implementation of any
those reserved and intended for common and public welfare and service; the petitioners, negates the need to resolve the issues raised in the
and Complaint and Answer with Counterclaims – whether or not the petitioners
may be compelled to vacate Calauit by virtue of their obligations
h. Right to Resolve Conflict. - Right to resolve land conflicts in accordance enumerated in the Resettlement Agreements.
with customary laws of the area where the land is located, and only in
default thereof shall the complaints be submitted to amicable settlement and The issuance by the respondent of CADT No. R04-BUS-0308-062 over
to the Courts of Justice whenever necessary. (Emphasis supplied.) 3,683.2324 (the entire area subject of the Resettlement Agreements) in
favor of the settlers, including the petitioners, provide their occupation
More significantly, the aforequoted provision provides that the right to and/or settlement on the subject land an apparent color of authority at the
ancestral domain carries with it the right to "stay in the territory and not to very least by virtue of Republic Act No. 8371. Precisely, under the law, a
be removed therefrom." And the CADT was issued notwithstanding the Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title "refers to a title formally recognizing the
existence of Presidential Proclamation No. 1578, which recognized the rights of possession and ownership of ICCs/[Indigenous Peoples (IPs)] over
existence of private rights already extant at the time. Thus, although the their ancestral domains59 identified and delineated in accordance with [the]
issuance of the CADT in favor of the Tagbanua ICC to develop, control, law."60 Therefore, the settlers continued stay in Calauit has become a non-
manage, and utilize Calauit does not affect the propriety or impropriety of issue. As such, any discussion on the matter of the propriety of the
the execution of the Resettlement Agreements per se, the same, however, Resettlement Agreements and their effects would be mere surplusage.
gainsays the avowed consequence of said contracts, that is, to remove and
transfer the settlers from Calauit to the resettlement areas in Halsey and Although the moot and academic principle admits of certain exceptions,61
Burabod. none are applicable in this case.

Verily, in Gancho-on v. Secretary of Labor and Employment,58 this Court But emphasis must be made that the disposition of the instant petition does
emphasized that: not at all touch on the propriety or impropriety of the issuance of the
CADT.1awp++i1 Such a question is not for this Court to take on at this time
It is a rule of universal application, almost, that courts of justice constituted as, in fact, it is not raised herein.
to pass upon substantial rights will not consider questions in which no actual
interests are involved; they decline jurisdiction of moot cases. And where Relative to the recent prayer of the petitioners that they be awarded
the issue has become moot and academic, there is no justiciable individual titles of ownership over portions of Calauit as the issuance of
controversy, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or CADT in favor of the Tagbanua ICC amounts to an affirmation and
value. There is no actual substantial relief to which petitioners would be recognition of the property rights of their ancestors from whom they trace
entitled and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition. their present individual claims,62 this Court points out that under Section 12
(Citations omitted.) of Republic Act No. 8371, individual members of cultural communities, with
respect to individually owned ancestral lands, the option to secure title to
From the above pronouncement, there is no justiciable controversy anymore the same must be done in accordance with the provisions of Commonwealth
in the instant petition in view of the issuance of CADT. There is no longer Act No. 141, as amended, or the Land Registration Act 496.
any purpose in determining whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming
the Decision of the RTC since any declaration thereon would be of no In light of the foregoing, the issues invoked by the parties no longer need to
practical use or value. be discussed.

Clearly, any decision of this Court on the present petition, whether it be an WHEREFORE, the April 24, 2002 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
affirmance or a reversal of the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals, CV No. 46222 is SET ASIDE, and Civil Case No. 2262 is DISMISSED, for
would be equivalent in effect to an affirmance or an invalidation of the being moot and academic. No costs.
challenged Decision of the RTC. But the Office of the President’s issuance of
a 2008 Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title in favor of the settlers, including SO ORDERED.