Appeals court upholds tribe’s right over land in Palawan town
The Court of Appeals (CA) has ruled in favor of members of the indigenous Tagbanua tribe, denying an appeal over a land dispute in Narra town, Palawan, and affirming the return of the disputed property to them.
The CA’s 12th Division, in a decision in August, upheld the 2022 ruling of the Puerto Princesa City Regional Trial Court (RTC), which nullified the original certificate of title (OCT) under the Palawan Registry of Deeds and ordered the reconveyance of a 118,981-square meter parcel of land to the tribe members.
Even without a certificate of ancestral domain title, the appeals court said the indigenous peoples’ (IP) rights as members of the Tagbanua tribe remain “intact and legally protected, grounded not merely on statutory recognition but on their native title.”
This right, the CA added, “exists independently of formal documentation and arises from their long-standing occupation and cultivation of the subject property since time immemorial.”
The case stemmed from the complaint filed by Cristeta Batac-Espinosa and nine others in 2012 seeking to nullify the OCT of appellant Noel Pronto. This was after a Municipal Trial Court ordered the complainants ejected in 2008 and issued an alias writ of execution, which was subsequently served in 2012.
Batac-Espinosa and the other complainants said they were members of the Tagbanua tribe residing in Barangay Malinao, Narra, Palawan, and descendants of Manuel Batac and Alberta Pilandoc, both of whom were full-blooded indigenous Tagbanuas.
Due to Manuel’s diligence and dedication to farming, he gained ownership over several parcels of land located in the barangay, the complainants asserted.
Unlawful claim
These lands were later included in the certificate of ancestral domain title (CADT) application filed by indigenous communities in Sitio Mariwara, Barangay Princess Urduja, Hacienda de Panacan and Sitios Catil and Malinao II, all in Barangay Malinao in Narra.
The disputed property, Lot 90 (Pls-23), measuring 118,981 square meters and surveyed on July 14, 1955, was among those covered by the application. Sometime in 1995, however, Pronto asserted ownership, showing the OCT as proof.
The complainants said Pronto threatened them with court litigation if they failed to vacate the property and relinquish possession of the land in his favor.
“Out of fear of litigation and due to their limited understanding of legal processes, plaintiffs-appellees reluctantly acquiesced to Pronto’s demand and agreed to remain on the property as his tenants subject to the condition that a portion of their agricultural produce would be delivered to him,” the CA said.
However, upon verification with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), the complainants found out that the issuance of the OCT was unlawful.
In 2022, the RTC issued a decision declaring the OCT null and void and ordering the return of the subject property to the complainants.
When the case was elevated to the CA, Pronto argued the complainants’ mere claim of being Tagbanua tribe members was insufficient to prove that the land they occupy formed part of an ancestral domain under the criteria prescribed by the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997. He also contended that the mere filing of an application for a CADT did not, by itself, vested the subject property with the status of ancestral domain.
However, the CA, in the Aug. 20 ruling penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob, agreed with the RTC’s findings that the complainants “hold a valid and superior claim” over the disputed property, being members of Narra’s Tagbanua community.
The CA also noted that the subject land, being part of an ancestral domain, was never classified as “alienable and disposable public land.” The court gave weight to the 1936 homestead application of the complainants, which was filed by their predecessor, Manuel.
