Land Registration The “Regalian Doctrine,” legal concept.

Chapter I The “Regalian Doctrine” or jura regalia is a

REGALIAN DOCTRINE Western legal concept that was first introduced by
the Spaniards into the country through the Laws of
the Indies and the Royal Cedulas.—The capacity of
The Regalian Doctrine: An Overview
the State to own or acquire property is the state’s
Under the Regalian Doctrine, all lands not power of dominium. This was the foundation for the
otherwise appearing to be clearly within private early Spanish decrees embracing the feudal theory
ownership are presumed to belong to the State. The of jura regalia. The “Regalian Doctrine” or jura
Spaniards first introduced the doctrine to the regalia is a Western legal concept that was first
Philippines through the Laws of the Indies and the introduced by the Spaniards into the country
Royal Cedulas, specifically, Law 14, Title 12, Book 4 through the Laws of the Indies and the Royal
of the Novisima Recopilacion de Leyes de las
Cedulas. (Cruz vs. Secretary of Environment and
Indias which laid the foundation that “all lands that
were not acquired from the Government, either by Natural Resources, ( G.R. No. 135385. December
purchase or by grant, belong to the public 6, 2000.)
domain.” Upon the Spanish conquest of the
Philippines, ownership of all “lands, territories and
possessions” in the Philippines passed to the All lands of the Public Domain belong to the
Spanish Crown.
State.
The Laws of the Indies were followed by the Ley
Hipotecaria or the Mortgage Law of 1893. The Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands not
Spanish Mortgage Law provided for the systematic otherwise appearing to be clearly within private
registration of titles and deeds as well as possessory ownership are presumed to belong to the State. No
claims. The Royal Decree of 1894 or the “Maura public land can be acquired by private persons
Law” partly amended the Mortgage Law as well as without any grant, express or implied, from the
the Law of the Indies. The Maura Law was the last
Government. It is indispensable, therefore, that
Spanish land law promulgated in the Philippines. It
required the “adjustment” or registration of all there is a showing of a title from the State.
agricultural lands, otherwise the lands would revert Occupation of public land in the concept of owner,
to the state. no matter how long, cannot ripen into ownership
and be register. (Republic vs. Santos III, G.R.
Four years later, Spain ceded to the government No. 160453. November 12, 2012)
of the United States all rights, interests and claims
over the national territory of the Philippine Islands
through the Treaty of Paris of December 10, 1898.
In 1903, the United States colonial government, Regalian Doctrine, Principle.
through the Philippine Commission, passed Act No.
926, the first Public Land Act, x x x Regalian Doctrine is a legal principle that
holds that all natural wealth – agricultural, forest,
“Act No. 926, the first Public Land Act, was passed timber and mineral lands of the Public Domain and
in pursuance of the provisions of the Philippine Bill all other natural resources belong to the State.
of 1902. The law governed the disposition of lands Thus, even if a private person owns the property
of the public domain. It prescribed rules and where minerals are discovered, his ownership does
regulations for the homesteading, selling and not give him the right to extract or utilize said
leasing of portions of the public domain of the minerals without permission from the State to
Philippine Islands, and prescribed the terms and which such minerals belong. (Menguito vs
conditions to enable persons to perfect their titles to Republic, G.R. No. 134308, December 14, 2000)
public lands in the Islands. It also provided for the
“issuance of patents to certain native settlers upon Presumption that all lands of the Public
public lands,” for the establishment of town sites Domain belong to the state.
and sale of lots therein, for the completion of
imperfect titles, and for the cancellation or Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands of the
confirmation of Spanish concessions and grants in public domain belong to the State, and the State is
the Islands.” In short, the Public Land Act operated the source of any asserted right to ownership in land
on the assumption that title to public lands in the and charged with the conservation of such
Philippine Islands remained in the government; and patrimony. This same doctrine also states that all
that the government’s title to public land sprung from lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within
the Treaty of Paris and other subsequent treaties private ownership are presumed to belong to the
between Spain and the United States. The term State. To overcome such presumption,
“public land” referred to all lands of the public incontrovertible evidence must be shown by the
domain whose title still remained in the government applicant that the land subject of the application is
and are thrown open to private appropriation and alienable or disposable. (PAGKATIPUNAN V. COURT
settlement, and excluded the patrimonial property OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 129682, March 21, 2002)
of the government and the friar lands.” (Collado vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107764. October 4, 2002)
The onus of proving that the land is alienable and also states that all lands not otherwise appearing to
disposable lies with the applicant in an original be clearly within private ownership are presumed to
registration proceeding; the government, in belong to the State. Consequently, the burden of
opposing the purported nature of the land, need not proof to overcome the presumption of ownership of
adduce evidence to prove otherwise. In order to lands of the public domain is on the person applying
overcome the presumption of State ownership of for registration. Unless public land is shown to have
public dominion lands, the applicant must present been reclassified and alienated by the State to a
incontrovertible evidence that the land subject of private person, it remains part of the inalienable
the application is alienable or disposable (Republic public domain. (Republic vs. Capco de Tensuan,
of the Philippines vs Alaminos Ice Plant and G.R. No. 171136. October 23, 2013.)
Cold Storage, Inc., G.R. No. 189723, 871 SCRA
510, July 11, 2018)

Forest, timber and mineral lands of the Public

Burden of proof to overcome the Domain and all other natural resources belong to the
presumption of ownership of lands of the public State.
domain.

Under the Regalian doctrine which is X x x, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other
embodied in our Constitution, all lands of the public mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries,
domain belong to the State, which is the source of forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other
any asserted right to ownership of land; All lands natural resources are owned by the State.
not appearing to be clearly within private ownership With the exception of agricultural lands, all other
are presumed to belong to the State; To overcome natural resources shall not be
this presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be alienated. The exploration, development and
established that the land subject of the application utilization of natural resources shall be
is alienable or disposable. (Republic vs. Lao, G.R. under the full control and supervision of the State.
No. 150413. July 1, 2003) X x x. Accordingly, The State may directly undertake such activities or
public lands not shown to have been reclassified or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or
released as alienable agricultural land or alienated production-sharing agreements with Filipino
to a private person by the State remain part of the citizens, or corporations or associations at least
alienable public domain. No public land can be sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such
acquired by private persons without any grant, citizens. (Joven vs. Calilung, G.R. No.
express or implied, from the government; and it 129546. December 13, 2005) Thus, even if a
is indispensable that the person claiming title to private person owns the property where minerals
public land should show that his title was acquired are discovered, his ownership does not give him the
from the State or any other mode of acquisition right to extract or utilize said minerals without
recognized by law. (Republic vs. Muñoz, GR No. permission from the State to which such minerals
151910, October 15, 2007) belong. (Menguito vs Republic, G.R. No. 134308,
December 14, 2000)

x x x. Consequently, the burden of proof to overcome

the presumption of ownership of lands of the public
domain is on the person applying for registration. Alvarez vs. PICOP Resources, Inc.,
Unless public land is shown to have been G.R. No. 164516. December 3, 2009
reclassified and alienated by the State to a private
person, it remains part of the inalienable public The Facts.
domain. (ZARATE, vs. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF
THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 131501 July To recall, PICOP filed with the Department of
14, 2004) Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) an
application to have its Timber License Agreement
Unless public land is shown to have been (TLA) No. 43 converted into an IFMA. In the middle of
reclassified or alienated to a private person by the the processing of PICOP’s application, however, PICOP
State, it remains part of the inalienable public refused to attend further meetings with the DENR.
domain; Occupation thereof in the concept of owner, Instead, on 2 September 2002, PICOP filed before the
no matter how long, cannot ripen into ownership and Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City a Petition
be registered as a title. for Mandamus1 against then DENR Secretary
Heherson T. Alvarez. PICOP seeks the issuance of a
Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands of the privileged writ of mandamus to compel the DENR
public domain belong to the State, and that the Secretary to sign, execute and deliver an IFMA to
State is the source of any asserted right to PICOP, x x x
ownership of land and charged with the
conservation of such patrimony. The same doctrine
 On 11 October 2002, the RTC rendered a may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years,
Decision granting PICOP’s Petition for Mandamus, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and
thus: under such terms and conditions as may be
provided by law. In cases of water rights for
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the irrigation, water supply fisheries, or industrial uses
Petition for Mandamus is hereby GRANTED. other than the development of water power,
beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the
The Respondent DENR Secretary Hon. grant. Mr. Justice Dante O. Tinga’s interpretation of
Heherson Alvarez is hereby ordered: the 1969 Document is much more in accord with
the laws and the Constitution. What one cannot do
1. to sign, execute and deliver the IFMA directly, he cannot do indirectly. Forest lands
contract and/or documents to PICOP and issue the cannot be alienated in favor of private entities.
corresponding IFMAassignment number on the area Granting to private entities, via a contract, a
covered by the IFMA, formerly TLA No. 43, as permanent, irrevocable, and exclusive possession of
amended; and right over forest lands is tantamount to
granting ownership thereof. PICOP, it should be
2. to issue the necessary permit allowing noted, claims nothing less than having exclusive,
petitioner to act and harvest timber from the said continuous and uninterrupted possession of its
area of TLA No. 43, sufficient to meet the raw concession areas, where all other entrants are
material requirements of petitioner’s pulp and paper illegal, and where so-called “illegal settlers and
mills in accordance with the warranty and squatters” are apprehended.
agreement of July 29, 1969 between the government
and PICOP’s predecessor-in-interest; and
Regalian Doctrine, Exception.
3. to honor and respect the Government
Warranties and contractual obligations to PICOP
strictly in accordance with the warranty and Cruz vs. Secretary of Environmentand Natural
agreement dated July 29, 1999 (sic) between the Resources
government and PICOP’s predecessor-in-interest x G.R. No. 135385. December 6, 2000
xx
The Facts.

On 19 February 2004, the Seventh Division Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa
of the Court of Appeals affirmed8 the Decision of the brought this suit for prohibition and mandamus as
RTC, x x x citizens and taxpayers, assailing the
constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic
Act No. 8371 (R.A. 8371), otherwise known as the
The Court’s Ruling. Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA), and
its Implementing Rules and Regulations
Forest lands cannot be alienated in favor of (Implementing Rules).
private entities—granting to private entities, via a
contract, a permanent, irrevocable, and exclusive On October 19, 1998, respondents Secretary of
possession of and right over forest lands is the Department of Environment and Natural
tantamount to granting ownership thereof.—PICOP’s Resources (DENR) and Secretary of the Department
interpretation of the 1969 Document cannot of Budget and Management (DBM) filed through the
besustained. PICOP’s claim that the term of the Solicitor General a consolidated Comment. The
warranty is not limited to fifty years, but that it Solicitor General is of the view that the IPRA is
extends to other fifty years, perpetually, violates partly unconstitutional on the ground that it grants
Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution which ownership over natural resources to indigenous
provides: Section 2. All lands of the public domain, peoples and prays that the petition be granted in
waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other part.
mineral oils, all forces of potential energy,
fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and
fauna, and other natural resources are owned by On March 22, 1999, the Commission on
the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, Human Rights (CHR) likewise filed a Motion to
all other natural resources shall not be alienated. Intervene and/or to Appear as Amicus Curiae. The
The exploration, development, and utilization of CHR asserts that IPRA is an expression of the
natural resources shall be under the full control and principle of parens patriae and that the State has
supervision of the State. The State may directly the responsibility to protect and guarantee the
undertake such activities, or it may enter into co- rights of those who are at a serious disadvantage
production, joint venture, or production-sharing like indigenous peoples. For this reason it prays that
agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or the petition be dismissed.
associations at least sixty per centum of whose
capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements
 On March 23, 1999, another group, composed of
the Ikalahan Indigenous People and the Haribon
Foundation for the Conservation of Natural
Resources, Inc. (Haribon, et al.), filed a Motion to
Intervene with attached Comment-in-Intervention.
They agree with the NCIP and Flavier, et al. that
IPRA is consistent with the Constitution and pray
that the petition for prohibition and mandamus be
dismissed.

Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the

following provisions of the IPRA and its
Implementing Rules on the ground that they
amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s
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:

The Court’s Ruling.

The IPRA categorically declares ancestral lands

and domains held by native title as never to have
been public land—domains and lands held under
native title are, therefore, indisputably presumed to
have never been public lands and are private.

In the Philippines, the concept of native title first

upheld in Cariño and enshrined in the IPRA grants
ownership, albeit in limited form, of the land to the
ICCs/IPs. Native title presumes that the land is
private and was never public. Cariño is the only case
that specifically and categorically recognizes native
title.

Thus, ancestral lands and ancestral domains

are not part of the lands of the public domain. They
are private and belong to the ICCs/IPs. Section 3 of
Article XII on National Economy and Patrimony of
the 1987 Constitution classifies lands of the public
domain into four categories: (a) agricultural, (b)
forest or timber, (c) mineral lands, and (d) national
parks. Section 5 of the same Article XII mentions
ancestral lands and ancestral domains but it does
not classify them under any of the said four
categories. To classify them as public lands under
any one of the four classes will render the entire
IPRA law a nullity. The spirit of the IPRA lies in the
distinct concept of ancestral domains and ancestral
lands. The IPRA addresses the major problem of the
ICCs/IPs which is loss of land. Land and space are
of vital concern in terms of sheer survival of the
ICCs/IPs. The 1987 Constitution mandates the
State to “protect the rights of indigenous cultural
communities to their ancestral lands” and that
“Congress provide for the applicability of customary
laws x x x in determining the ownership and extent
of ancestral domain.” It is the recognition of the
ICCs/IPs distinct rights of ownership over their
ancestral domains and lands that breathes life into
this constitutional mandate.