 Cariño vs. Insular Government, 212 U.S.

449 (1909): This landmark case involved Mateo

Cariño, an Igorot from Benguet, Philippines, who sought legal recognition of his ancestral land,
which he and his ancestors had occupied for over fifty years. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in
favor of Cariño, acknowledging that long-term possession under native customs could establish
ownership, even without formal title documents. This decision recognized indigenous land rights
and set a precedent for ancestral domain claims.

supreme.justia.com

 Unduran vs. Aberasturi, G.R. No. 181284: In this case, the Supreme Court of the
Philippines addressed a land dispute involving conflicting claims of ownership. The Court
examined the validity of titles and the credibility of presented evidence, ultimately ruling based
on the strength of the parties' claims and adherence to legal procedures.

 Ha Datu Tawahig vs. Lapinid, G.R. No. 221139: This case involved a conflict over
ancestral domain between indigenous groups and private entities. The Supreme Court
emphasized the importance of respecting indigenous peoples' rights to their ancestral lands, as
enshrined in the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act (IPRA), and provided guidelines for resolving
such disputes.

 Lamsis vs. Dong-e, G.R. No. 173021: The dispute centered on land ownership and the
recognition of ancestral domain rights. The Supreme Court highlighted the necessity of proper
documentation and compliance with legal requirements to establish claims over ancestral lands,
reinforcing the procedures outlined in the IPRA.

 Heirs of Tunged vs. Sta. Lucia Realty, G.R. No. 231737: This case dealt with the clash
between ancestral land claims and commercial development interests. The Supreme Court
balanced the rights of indigenous communities with the need for development, underscoring the
requirement for free, prior, and informed consent from indigenous peoples before proceeding
with projects on their ancestral lands.

 Benguet vs. Lepanto, G.R. No. 244063: In this case, the Supreme Court examined issues
related to mining operations within ancestral domains. The Court ruled on the necessity of
obtaining consent from indigenous communities and ensuring that mining activities do not
infringe upon their rights, in line with environmental laws and the IPRA.

 Santos vs. Gabaen, G.R. No. 195638: This case involved a dispute over land inheritance and
the application of customary laws versus national laws. The Supreme Court recognized the
validity of indigenous customs in matters of inheritance within their communities, provided they
do not contravene existing laws and public policy.

 Sama vs. People, G.R. No. 224469: This case addressed the criminal liability of an
indigenous person under national law. The Supreme Court considered the cultural context and
traditional practices of the accused, highlighting the importance of cultural sensitivity and the
potential application of restorative justice within indigenous communities.
Cariño vs. Insular Government

 Case Name: Cariño vs. Insular Government

 Court: U.S. Supreme Court
 Date: February 23, 1909
 Issue: Recognition of native title to ancestral lands under colonial legal systems.

Facts: Mateo Cariño, an indigenous Ibaloi from Benguet, Philippines, sought legal recognition
of his ancestral land, which his family had occupied and cultivated since time immemorial.
Despite this long-standing possession, the colonial government denied his claim, arguing that the
land was part of the public domain due to the absence of formal title under Spanish or American
law.

Issue: Whether indigenous ancestral land rights (native title) could be recognized under the
prevailing colonial legal framework, despite the lack of formal land titles.

Ruling: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cariño, establishing the principle that native
title is a legitimate property right rooted in the long-standing possession and occupation of land
by indigenous peoples. The Court recognized that such rights existed prior to and independently
of colonial land laws, thereby affirming the validity of ancestral land claims based on customary
tenure.

Significance: This landmark decision acknowledged the property rights of indigenous peoples
based on their traditional customs and occupancy, setting a precedent for future legal recognition
of ancestral domain claims. It underscored the importance of respecting indigenous land rights,
even in the absence of formal documentation imposed by colonial authorities.

2. Unduran vs. Aberasturi

 Case Name: Unduran vs. Aberasturi

 Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines
 Date: October 20, 2015
 Issue: Jurisdiction over disputes involving ancestral domain claims between indigenous
peoples and non-indigenous parties.

Facts: Petitioners, members of the Talaandig indigenous community, claimed ownership of a

105.7361-hectare land within their ancestral domain, for which they held a Certificate of
Ancestral Domain Title (CADT). Respondents, non-indigenous individuals, also claimed
ownership of the same land based on alleged purchase and possession. The petitioners argued
that the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) had exclusive jurisdiction over the
dispute, while the respondents contended that regular courts should hear the case.

Issue: Whether the NCIP or regular courts have jurisdiction over disputes involving ancestral
domain claims between indigenous and non-indigenous parties.
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that regular courts have jurisdiction over such disputes. The
Court reasoned that while the NCIP has authority over claims between members of the same
indigenous cultural community, conflicts involving non-indigenous parties fall under the
jurisdiction of regular courts. This ensures that all parties receive due process under the law.

Significance: The decision delineated the jurisdictional boundaries between the NCIP and
regular courts, clarifying that disputes over ancestral domains involving non-indigenous parties
are to be resolved by regular courts. This ruling ensures that both indigenous and non-indigenous
parties have access to appropriate legal forums for the adjudication of their claims.

Case Overview:

 Case Name: Loloy Unduran, et al. vs. Ramon Aberasturi, et al.

 Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines
 Date: October 20, 2015
 Docket Number: G.R. No. 181284
 Issue: Determination of the proper jurisdiction—whether the National Commission on
Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) or the regular courts—over disputes involving claims to
ancestral lands between indigenous peoples and non-indigenous parties.

Facts:

 The petitioners, members of the MILALITTRA (Miarayon-Lapok-Lirongan-Tinaytayan

Tribal Association) and part of the Talaandig indigenous group, resided in Barangay
Miarayon, Talakag, Bukidnon.
 The respondents, led by Ramon Aberasturi, claimed ownership of Lot No. 7367 Cad 630-
D, a parcel of land situated within what the petitioners asserted as their ancestral domain.
 A dispute arose when the respondents sought to assert their ownership rights over the
land, leading to tensions and confrontations between the parties.
 The respondents filed a petition for injunction and damages with the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) to prevent the petitioners from interfering with their claimed property rights.
 The petitioners, in response, filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the NCIP had
exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, as it involved a dispute over ancestral domain.

Procedural History:

 The RTC denied the petitioners' motion to dismiss, asserting its jurisdiction over the case.
 The petitioners elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals, which upheld the RTC's
decision.
 Subsequently, the petitioners brought the case before the Supreme Court, challenging the
lower courts' rulings on jurisdiction.

Issue:
  Whether the NCIP has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving claims to ancestral
lands between indigenous peoples and non-indigenous parties, thereby ousting the regular
courts of jurisdiction.

Ruling:

 The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC, not the NCIP, had jurisdiction over the case.
 The Court clarified that under Section 66 of the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act (IPRA),
the NCIP's jurisdiction over disputes involving rights of Indigenous Cultural
Communities (ICCs) or Indigenous Peoples (IPs) applies only when all parties to the
dispute belong to the same ICC or IP group.
 In this case, since the dispute was between members of the Talaandig indigenous group
(petitioners) and non-indigenous individuals (respondents), the NCIP did not have
jurisdiction.
 The Court emphasized that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint.
Since the respondents' complaint was a civil action for injunction and damages based on
their claim of ownership, the RTC properly assumed jurisdiction over the matter.

Significance:

1. Clarification of NCIP Jurisdiction: The decision delineates the scope of the NCIP's
jurisdiction, limiting it to disputes where all parties are members of the same ICC or IP
group.
2. Guidance on Jurisdictional Determination: The ruling underscores that the
determination of jurisdiction is based on the allegations presented in the complaint,
providing a clear standard for courts in assessing jurisdictional issues.
3. Protection of Legal Rights: The case highlights the importance of proper jurisdictional
determination to ensure that parties' legal rights are adjudicated by the appropriate forum,
thereby upholding the rule of law.

3. Ha Datu Tawahig vs. Lapinid

 Case Name: Ha Datu Tawahig vs. Lapinid

 Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines
 Date: [Date Not Provided]
 Issue: Enforcement of indigenous peoples' rights over ancestral domains against
encroachments by non-indigenous entities.

Facts: Ha Datu Tawahig, a recognized indigenous leader, filed a case against Lapinid, alleging
unauthorized occupation and use of their ancestral land. The petitioner claimed that the
respondent's activities violated their rights under the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act (IPRA) and
sought legal redress to protect their ancestral domain.
Issue: Whether indigenous communities can enforce their rights over ancestral domains against
unauthorized occupation by non-indigenous parties under the IPRA.

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ha Datu Tawahig, affirming that the IPRA
provides indigenous peoples with the legal framework to assert and protect their rights over
ancestral domains. The Court emphasized that any encroachment or unauthorized use of such
lands by non-indigenous parties without the free, prior, and informed consent of the indigenous
community is unlawful.

Significance: This case reinforced the protective measures enshrined in the IPRA, ensuring that
indigenous communities have the authority to defend their ancestral lands against unauthorized
intrusions. It highlighted the necessity for non-indigenous entities to obtain proper consent
before engaging in activities within ancestral domains.

Case Overview:

 Case Name: Ha Datu Tawahig (Roderick D. Sumatra) vs. Cebu City Prosecutor I Lineth
Lapinid, et al.
 Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines
 Date: March 20, 2019
 Docket Number: G.R. No. 221139
 Issue: Whether the prosecution of an indigenous tribal chieftain for rape should be
quashed based on a tribal court's resolution and the provisions of the Indigenous Peoples'
Rights Act (IPRA).

Facts:

 Roderick D. Sumatra, also known as Ha Datu Tawahig, is the tribal chieftain of the
Higaonon Tribe.
 On November 14, 2006, Lorraine Fe P. Igot filed a complaint-affidavit before the Cebu
City Prosecutor, accusing Sumatra of rape.
 The Cebu City Prosecutor found probable cause and filed a criminal case against Sumatra
in 2007.
 The case was assigned to Branch 12 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Cebu City,
presided over by Judge Estela Alma Singco.
 A warrant for Sumatra's arrest was issued in September 2007, but he was not
apprehended until July 2, 2013.
 Prior to his arrest, on January 3, 2007, the Dadantulan Tribal Court issued a resolution
dismissing the rape charge against Sumatra, asserting that the matter had been settled
according to their customary laws.
 After his arrest, Sumatra filed motions to quash the criminal case, invoking the tribal
court's resolution and the provisions of the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act (IPRA).
  The RTC denied these motions, leading Sumatra to file a petition for mandamus before
the Supreme Court, seeking to compel the RTC and the prosecutors to honor the tribal
court's resolution and cease his prosecution.

Issue:

 Whether the resolution of the Dadantulan Tribal Court, based on customary laws, should
prevail over national laws in criminal cases involving indigenous peoples, thereby
nullifying the prosecution of Sumatra for rape.

Ruling:

 The Supreme Court denied Sumatra's petition for mandamus.

 The Court held that while the IPRA recognizes the rights of indigenous peoples to
practice their customary laws, these do not supersede national laws, especially in criminal
matters.
 The Court emphasized that criminal jurisdiction remains with the State, and offenses such
as rape are prosecuted in the name of the People of the Philippines.
 The Court further stated that the resolution of a tribal court does not have the effect of
barring the State from prosecuting criminal offenses under national law.
 Therefore, the prosecution of Sumatra for rape should proceed under the jurisdiction of
the regular courts.

Significance:

1. Supremacy of National Laws in Criminal Matters: The decision underscores that

while indigenous peoples have the right to practice their customs and traditions, these
cannot override national laws in criminal cases.
2. State's Authority in Criminal Jurisdiction: The ruling affirms the State's authority to
prosecute criminal offenses, regardless of resolutions made by indigenous or tribal courts.
3. Clarification of IPRA's Scope: The case clarifies that the IPRA does not grant
indigenous communities the power to adjudicate criminal cases to the exclusion of
regular courts.

4. Lamsis vs. Dong-e

 Case Name: Lamsis vs. Dong-e

 Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines
 Date: [Date Not Provided]
 Issue: Recognition and protection of indigenous peoples' ancestral land rights in the face
of conflicting claims.

Facts: Lamsis, representing an indigenous community, filed a case against Dong-e, who claimed
ownership of a parcel of land within the community's ancestral domain. The petitioner argued
that the land had been part of their ancestral territory for generations and that Dong-e's claim was
based on fraudulent titles. The respondent, however, presented documents alleging legitimate
ownership.

Issue: How should courts adjudicate disputes involving ancestral land claims when faced with
conflicting ownership documents?

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lamsis, recognizing the ancestral land rights of the
indigenous community. The Court held that in cases of conflicting claims, the long-standing
possession and occupation by indigenous peoples, supported by credible testimony and evidence
of communal use, should be given paramount consideration over irregular or dubious titles.

Significance: This decision underscored the importance of prioritizing indigenous peoples'

ancestral land rights, especially when their claims are backed by historical occupation and
cultural ties to the land. It also highlighted the need for vigilance against fraudulent land titles
that undermine indigenous ownership.

Case Overview:

 Case Name: Delfin Lamsis, et al. vs. Margarita Semon Dong-E

 Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines
 Date: October 20, 2010
 Docket Number: G.R. No. 173021
 Issue: Determination of rightful ownership and possession of an untitled parcel of land
known as Lot No. 1, located along Km. 5 Asin Road, Baguio City.

Facts:

 The dispute centers on Lot No. 1, an 80,736-square-meter untitled parcel of land in

Baguio City.
 Respondent's Claim:
o Margarita Semon Dong-E asserts that her family's ownership and occupation of
Lot No. 1 date back to 1922, originating from her grandfather, Ap-ap.
o In 1964, Ap-ap's heirs obtained a survey plan covering Lot No. 1 and declared the
property for taxation purposes under "The Heirs of Ap-ap."
o That same year, they executed a Deed of Quitclaim in favor of their brother,
Gilbert Semon, Margarita's father.
o Between 1976 and 1978, Gilbert allowed his in-laws, Manolo Lamsis and Nancy
Lamsis-Kitma, to occupy portions of Lot No. 1.
o After their deaths in the 1980s, their children, petitioners Delfin Lamsis and
Agustin Kitma, continued to possess parts of the land.
o Following Gilbert's death in 1983, his heirs partitioned the property
extrajudicially, assigning Lot No. 1 to Margarita, who continued paying realty
taxes and maintaining the property.
  Petitioners' Claim:
o The petitioners, actual occupants of Lot No. 1, claim ownership based on their
long-term possession and the improvements they introduced to the land.

Procedural History:

 Margarita filed a complaint for recovery of possession and ownership against the
petitioners.
 The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Margarita, ordering the petitioners to
vacate the property.
 The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision.
 The petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court, challenging the lower courts'
rulings.

Issue:

 Who holds the rightful ownership and possession of Lot No. 1?

Ruling:

 The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the RTC and the CA, ruling in favor of
Margarita Semon Dong-E.
 The Court held that Margarita successfully established her family's ownership through:
o Continuous possession and occupation since 1922.
o The 1964 survey plan and tax declarations.
o The Deed of Quitclaim executed in favor of her father, Gilbert Semon.
 The Court found the petitioners' claims of ownership unsubstantiated, noting that their
occupation was by mere tolerance of Margarita's family.
 The Court emphasized that tax declarations and long-term possession are strong indicia
of ownership, especially when unchallenged over an extended period.

Significance:

1. Reinforcement of Property Rights: The decision underscores the importance of

documented ownership and continuous possession in establishing property rights over
untitled land.
2. Role of Tax Declarations: The ruling highlights that while tax declarations are not
conclusive proof of ownership, they serve as strong evidence when coupled with actual
possession.
3. Doctrine of Tolerance: The case illustrates that occupants who possess property by the
owner's tolerance cannot claim ownership through mere possession, especially when such
tolerance is withdrawn.

5. Heirs of Tunged vs. Sta. Lucia Realty

  Case Name: Heirs of Tunged vs. Sta. Lucia Realty and Development, Inc. and Baguio
Properties, Inc.
 Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines
 Date: March 6, 2018
 Issue: Jurisdiction over environmental and ancestral land disputes involving indigenous
peoples.

Facts: The petitioners, recognized members of the Ibaloi indigenous group and heirs of Tunged,
claimed ancestral ownership of a parcel of land in Baguio City. They alleged that Sta. Lucia
Realty and Baguio Properties, Inc. were unlawfully developing this land, leading to the
destruction of natural resources and violating their rights under the Indigenous Peoples' Rights
Act (IPRA) and environmental laws. The petitioners sought legal remedies, including the
issuance of an Environmental Protection Order and recognition of their ancestral land rights.

Issue: Whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) or the National Commission on Indigenous
Peoples (NCIP) has jurisdiction over the dispute involving environmental law violations and
ancestral land claims.

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC has jurisdiction over the case. The Court
emphasized that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint. Since the
petitioners' complaint included claims of environmental law violations and sought remedies
provided under environmental laws, the RTC was deemed the appropriate forum. The Court
clarified that while the NCIP has jurisdiction over certain disputes involving indigenous peoples,
cases that primarily involve environmental law violations fall under the jurisdiction of regular
courts.

Significance: This decision delineates the jurisdictional boundaries between the NCIP and
regular courts, particularly in cases where environmental law violations are alleged alongside
ancestral land claims. It underscores the principle that the nature of the allegations in the
complaint determines the appropriate forum for adjudication.

 6. Case Name: Lone Congressional District of Benguet Province vs. Lepanto

Consolidated Mining Company and Far Southeast Gold Resources, Inc.
 Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines
 Date: June 21, 2022
 Issue: Whether the renewal of Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) No. 001-
90 requires compliance with the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) and National
Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) certification mandates under the Indigenous
Peoples' Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997.

Facts:

 On March 3, 1990, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)

entered into MPSA No. 001-90 with Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company and Far
Southeast Gold Resources, Inc., granting them rights to conduct mining operations in
Mankayan, Benguet.
 elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph

 The MPSA had an initial term of 25 years, with a provision for renewal for another 25
years "upon such terms and conditions as may be mutually agreed upon by the parties or
as may be provided by law."
 The area covered by the MPSA overlaps with ancestral domains of Indigenous Cultural
Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) in Mankayan.
 In 1997, Republic Act No. 8371, known as the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act (IPRA),
was enacted, requiring that any mining agreement affecting ancestral domains must
secure FPIC from the indigenous communities concerned.
 As the original MPSA approached its expiration on March 18, 2015, the mining
companies applied for its renewal. The Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) informed
them that, in compliance with the IPRA, they needed to secure FPIC and NCIP
certification.
 The companies contested this requirement, arguing that it was not stipulated in the
original agreement and that imposing it would impair their vested rights. They initiated
arbitration proceedings, and on November 27, 2015, the Arbitral Tribunal ruled in their
favor, stating that the FPIC and NCIP certification were not necessary for the renewal.
 The Republic of the Philippines, through the MGB, challenged this arbitral award. The
Regional Trial Court (RTC) vacated the award, but the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed
the RTC's decision, reinstating the arbitral award.

Issue: Whether the renewal of MPSA No. 001-90 necessitates compliance with the FPIC and
NCIP certification requirements under the IPRA, despite these not being stipulated in the original
agreement.

Ruling: The Supreme Court set aside the Court of Appeals' decision and vacated the arbitral
award. The Court held that the renewal of MPSA No. 001-90 must comply with the FPIC and
NCIP certification requirements as mandated by the IPRA. The Court emphasized that the
renewal clause stating "upon such terms and conditions as may be mutually agreed upon by the
parties or as may be provided by law" incorporates subsequent laws enacted to protect public
interest, including the rights of indigenous peoples.

lawphil.net

Significance:

1. Affirmation of Indigenous Rights: The decision underscores the State's commitment to

uphold the rights of indigenous peoples, ensuring that their consent is obtained for
activities affecting their ancestral domains.
2. Legal Precedent: This ruling clarifies that contractual agreements, especially those
involving public interest, are subject to compliance with laws enacted after the
agreement's execution.
3. Regulatory Compliance: The case highlights the necessity for corporations to adhere to
evolving legal frameworks, particularly those protecting marginalized communities.
This landmark decision reinforces the importance of securing the Free, Prior, and Informed
Consent of indigenous communities in activities impacting their ancestral lands, aligning with
the principles enshrined in the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act.

7. Case Overview:

 Case Name: Santos vs. Gabaen

 Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines
 Date: March 22, 2022
 Docket Number: G.R. No. 195638
 Issue: The primary issues were whether the petition filed by Santos was the appropriate
legal remedy, whether Santos had the legal standing to challenge the Resource Use
Permit (RUP) issued to Pinagtibukan It Pala'wan, Inc. (PINPAL), and whether the
Supreme Court could rule on the constitutionality of provisions conferring ownership
over ancestral domains to Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs) under Republic Act
No. 8371.

Facts:

 Pinagtibukan It Pala'wan, Inc. (PINPAL), a people's organization of the Palawan

Indigenous Cultural Community in Barangay Punta Baja, Rizal, Palawan, was granted
Resource Use Permit (RUP) No. 001-09 by the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR). This permit authorized PINPAL to occupy, cut, collect, and remove
almaciga resin from their ancestral domain.
 Danny Erong, a Pala'wan Tribal Chieftain, filed a complaint alleging that the RUP was
issued without the required Certification Precondition under Section 59 of Republic Act
No. 8371, also known as the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997. He claimed
that this oversight allowed Anita Santos to monopolize the almaciga resin market.
 In response to the complaint, Atty. Kissack B. Gabaen, the Presiding Officer of the
National Commission on Indigenous Peoples-Regional Hearing Office (NCIP-RHO),
issued an Order on February 7, 2011, and a Cease and Desist Order on February 10,
2011, effectively halting activities under the RUP.
 Feeling aggrieved, Santos filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court, seeking to annul the orders issued by the NCIP-RHO.

Issues:

1. Whether Santos' petition was the appropriate legal remedy to challenge the orders of the
NCIP-RHO.
2. Whether Santos had the legal standing to contest the validity of PINPAL's RUP issued by
the DENR.
3. Whether the Supreme Court could rule on the constitutionality of provisions in the IPRA
that confer ownership over ancestral domains to ICCs.

Ruling: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that:

 1. Appropriateness of the Petition: While a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under
Rule 65 is a recognized remedy to challenge orders issued by a quasi-judicial body like
the NCIP-RHO, the Court emphasized the principle of hierarchy of courts. Santos should
have first sought relief from the lower courts before elevating the matter to the Supreme
Court.
2. Legal Standing: Santos failed to demonstrate a direct and substantial interest in the case.
The Court noted that she did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that her rights were
adversely affected by the issuance of the RUP to PINPAL.
3. Constitutionality of IPRA Provisions: The Court declined to rule on the
constitutionality of the IPRA provisions, stating that the issue was not squarely raised nor
sufficiently argued in the petition.

Significance:

1. Adherence to Judicial Hierarchy: The decision reinforces the importance of observing

the judicial hierarchy, reminding litigants to seek remedies from lower courts before
approaching the Supreme Court.
2. Clarification on Legal Standing: The ruling underscores the necessity for petitioners to
establish a clear and substantial interest in a case to have the legal standing to sue.
3. Respect for Indigenous Rights: While the Court did not rule on the constitutionality of
the IPRA provisions, the case highlights the legal processes involved in the issuance of
permits affecting ancestral domains and the need to comply with statutory requirements
to protect indigenous peoples' rights.

 8. Case Name: Sama vs. People

 Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines
 Date: January 5, 2021
 Docket Number: G.R. No. 224469
 Issue: Whether members of the Iraya-Mangyan indigenous group can be held criminally
liable under Section 77 of Presidential Decree No. 705 (Revised Forestry Code) for
cutting a tree within their ancestral domain without a permit.

Facts:

 Petitioners Diosdado Sama y Hinupas and Bandy Masanglay y Aceveda, members of the
Iraya-Mangyan indigenous group, were charged with violating Section 77 of Presidential
Decree No. 705 (Revised Forestry Code) for cutting a dita tree without the necessary
permit.

lawphil.net

 The incident occurred on March 15, 2005, in Barangay Calangatan, San Teodoro,
Oriental Mindoro.

lawphil.net
  The petitioners contended that the tree was cut to construct a communal toilet for their
community, asserting that the tree stood within their ancestral domain.

Procedural History:

 The trial court convicted the petitioners, sentencing them to imprisonment and imposing
a fine.
 The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
 The petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that their actions were
justified under the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997, which recognizes the
rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands.

Issue:

 Can members of an indigenous cultural community be held criminally liable under the
Revised Forestry Code for cutting trees within their ancestral domain without a permit?

Ruling:

 The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the petitioners.

 The Court held that while the IPRA recognizes the rights of indigenous peoples to their
ancestral domains, these rights are not absolute and must be exercised in accordance with
existing laws.
 The Revised Forestry Code requires a permit for the cutting of trees, regardless of the
land's ownership or status.
 The petitioners' failure to secure the necessary permit rendered their actions unlawful.

Significance:

1. Reaffirmation of Regulatory Compliance: The decision underscores that the exercise

of rights over ancestral domains by indigenous peoples must comply with national
regulatory frameworks, including environmental and forestry laws.
2. Balancing Indigenous Rights and Environmental Protection: The ruling highlights the
need to balance the recognition of indigenous cultural practices with the state's mandate
to protect the environment through regulatory measures.
3. Clarification of Legal Obligations: The case clarifies that while indigenous peoples
have recognized rights over their ancestral lands, these rights do not exempt them from
adhering to general laws intended to serve the broader public interest.