Scribd
Upload
233 views

Regalian Doctrine

The Regalian Doctrine holds that all lands and natural resources belong to the State unless proven otherwise. The Constitution recognizes the State's ownership over public lands and natural resources. However, exceptions exist for lands held by indigenous peoples through native title since time immemorial. The Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act of 1997 recognizes ancestral land rights of indigenous communities and provides them ownership over ancestral domains. The concept of ownership under indigenous law differs from Western notions in that ancestral land belongs to past, present and future generations of the community and cannot be sold.

Uploaded by

eieipayad
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
233 views

Regalian Doctrine

The Regalian Doctrine holds that all lands and natural resources belong to the State unless proven otherwise. The Constitution recognizes the State's ownership over public lands and natural resources. However, exceptions exist for lands held by indigenous peoples through native title since time immemorial. The Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act of 1997 recognizes ancestral land rights of indigenous communities and provides them ownership over ancestral domains. The concept of ownership under indigenous law differs from Western notions in that ancestral land belongs to past, present and future generations of the community and cannot be sold.

Uploaded by

eieipayad
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Regalian Doctrine

Under the Regalian Doctrine, all lands of whatever classification and other natural
resources not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed
to belong to the State. To overcome the presumption of State ownership, the applicant
must establish through incontrovertible evidence that the land sought to be registered is
alienable or disposable based on a positive act of the government.1

The doctrine is reflected Art. XII, Sec. 2 of the Constitution:


Sec. 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum,
and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber,
wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With
the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be
alienated.

All lands of public domain as well as natural resources enumerated in the


Philippine Constitution belong to the State. 2 The term natural resource includes not
only timber, gas, oil, coal, minerals, lakes and submerged lands, but also, features which
supply a human need and contribute to the health, welfare, and benefit of the
community, and are essential to the well-being thereof and proper enjoyment of property
devoted to park and recreational purposes.3

But in Cario v. Insular Government, 41 Phil. 935 (1909), cited in Cruz v. DENR
Secretary, 347 SCRA 128, the US Supreme Court granted an Igorot's application for
registration of a piece of land in Benguet based on the latter's possession of the land from
time immemorial, ratiocinating thus:
xxx when, as far back as testimony or memory goes, the land has been held by
individuals under a claim of private ownership, it will be presumed to have been
held in the same way from before the Spanish conquest, and never to have been
public land.

The existence of native title to land, or ownership of land by Filipinos by virtue of


possession under a claim of ownership since time immemorial and independent of any
grant from the Spanish Crown is an exception to the concept of jura regalia. 4

Registration under the Indigenous


Peoples Rights Act of 1997

1Republic v. Bantigue, G.R. No. 162322, March 14, 2012.


2 Edna Collado v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107764, October 4, 2002.
3 Id.
4 Cario v. Insular Government, G.R. No. 2869, March 25, 1907.
The R.A. 8371 or the IPRA is an act to recognize and promote the rights of
Indigenous Cultural Communities/ Indigenous Peoples creating a national commission on
Indigenous peoples, establishing implementing mechanisms, appropriating funds
therefore, and for other purposes. The aforementioned law is mandated by the
constitutional provisions:
The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural
communities within the framework of national unity and development. (Sec. 2
Art. II)
The Congress may provide for the applicability of customary law
governing property rights or relations in determining the ownership and extent of
ancestral domain. (Sec. 5, par. 2, Art. XII)

All disputes should be first settled according to the customary laws, traditions
and the practices of the state where such dispute arises. If the laws of the state does
not solve the issue, rules/laws of ICCs/IPs should be applied.

Indigenous concept of ownership

The IPRA recognizes the existence of the indigenous cultural communities or


indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs) as a distinct sector in Philippine Society. It grants these
people the ownership and possession of their ancestral domains and ancestral lands, and
defines the extent of these lands and domains. Indigenous concept of ownership sustains
the view that ancestral domains and all resources found therein shall serve as the
material bases of their cultural integrity. The indigenous concept of ownership generally
holds that ancestral domains are the ICC's/IP's private but community property which
belongs to all generations and therefore cannot be sold, disposed or destroyed. It likewise
covers sustainable traditional resource rights.

The ownership given is the indigenous concept of ownership under customary law
which traces its origin to native title. Ancestral lands/domains are not deemed part of
the lands of the public domain but are private lands belonging to ICCs/IPs who have
actually occupied, possessed and utilized their territories under claim of ownership since
time immemorial. Native title refers to pre-conquest rights which, as far back as
memory reaches, have been held under claim of private ownership by ICCs/IPs, have
never been public lands and are thus indisputably presumed to have been held that way
since before the Spanish Conquest. (Cruz v. Sec. of DENR, 347 SCA 128)

The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) has the authority to issue
certificates of ancestral domain title (CADT) or certificates of ancestral land title (CALT).
The recording of CADT and CALT in the Office of the Register of Deeds does not result in
the issuance of Torrens certificate of title. The purpose of registration is simply to apprise
the public of the fact of recognition by the NCIP of specific claims to portions of the
ancestral domains or ancestral lands.

Time immemorial

Those who have possessed lands since time immemorial with imperfect titles may
apply for registration of their land. An open, continuous, adverse and public possession
of a land of public domain from time immemorial by a private individual, personally or
through his predecessors, confers an effective title on said possessor.

All lands that were not acquired from the Government, either by purchase or by
grant, belong to the public domain. An exception to the rule would be any land that should
have been in the possession of an occupant and of his predecessors in interest since time
immemorial, for such possession would justify the presumption that the land had never
been part of the public domain or that it had been a private property even before the
Spanish conquest.

The benefits provided in the Public Land Act for the applicants immediate
predecessor in interest are or constitute a grant or concession by the State; and before
they could acquire any right under such benefits, the applicants immediate predecessors
in interest should comply with the condition precedent, which involves application for the
registration of the land of which they had been in possession at least since July 26, 1894.5

Vested right

A vested right is some right or interest in property that has been fixed and established,
and is no longer open to doubt or controversy. (Lucero v. City of Pasig, 508 SCRA 23; Ayog
v. Cusi, 204 Phil. 126) This right is perfect in itself; it is not dependent upon a
contingency. The concept of vested right expresses a present fixed interest which in right
reason and natural justice is protected against arbitrary state action. It includes not only
legal and equitable title to the enforcement of a demand but also exemptions from new
obligations created after the right has become vested.

An open, continuous, adverse and public possession of property from time immemorial
by a private individual confers effective title on said possessor, whereby the land ceases
to be public and becomes private property. (Susi v. Razon, 48 Phil. 424)

Vested rights, illustrated

5 Oh Cho v. Director of Lands, G.R. No. 48321, August 31, 1946.


In Ayog v. Cusi, 146 SCRA 15, the Court ruled that the prohibition under Sec. 11,
Art. XIV of the 1973 Constitution disqualifying for the first time a private corporation from
purchasing public lands has no retroactive application because respondent corporation
had already acquired a vested right to the land at the time the 1973 Constitution took
effect, i,e., by complying with the construction and cultivation requirements of the law
and paying the full purchase price of the land such that it now became the ministerial
duty of government to issue the sales patent to the corporation.

You might also like