City charter may prevail over ancestral claims to piece of land

(First of two parts)

Congress enacted the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) so the State may, among others, protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities (ICC) and indigenous peoples (IP) to their ancestral domains, to ensure their economic, social, and cultural well-being. It shall likewise be State policy to recognize the applicability of customary laws governing property rights or relations in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domain.

For this purpose, ancestral domains refer to all areas generally belonging to ICCs and IPs. These areas comprise lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and natural resources held under a claim of ownership, or otherwise occupied or possessed, by ICCs and IPs, or through their ancestors, communally or individually, since time immemorial, and continuously to the present.

These claims shall prevail even when war, force majeure, or displacement, as defined by the IPRA, would disrupt such ownership, occupation, or possession.

Nevertheless, the provisions of IPRA shall not apply to claims concerning lands in Baguio City, which is governed by its own Charter, as stated in Section 78 thereof, and as affirmed by the Supreme Court in the recent Republic of the Philippines v. National Commission on Indigenous Peoples, et al.

In this case, the heirs of Lauro Carantes (“Carantes heirs”) filed an ancestral claim before the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) over parcels of land in Baguio City. They alleged that the land belongs to the ICC of Ibaloi in Baguio City, which has claimed the disputed land since 1380.

Sometime in 1924, they said they were driven out of the area when it was declared as Forbes I and II reservations. Their claim was transferred to the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) for further proceedings pursuant to the IPRA. They also filed the instant claim before the DENR as a follow-up to their long-pending application before it.

The NCIP-Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR) endorsed the issuance of a Certificate of Ancestral Land Title to the Carantes heirs. However, the application remained dormant for some time, forcing the Carantes heirs to file a formal petition for the issuance of the Certificates of Ancestral Land Titles.

The NCIP issued a resolution granting the Carantes heirs’ application and directing the issuance of the said certificate. In its ruling, the NCIP held, among others, that: (a) the Carantes heirs’ rights were not extinguished when the disputed land was proclaimed a government reservation; and (b) they have possessed the disputed land since time immemorial under a true right of ownership, which is now enshrined in the IPRA.

Pursuant to the certificate, the Land Registration Authority issued Transfer Certificates of Titles (TCT) in favor of the Carantes heirs. Consequently, the DENR-CAR sought to investigate the issuance of the titles covering the Forbes Forest Reservation, which it found to be inalienable and undisposable for being a forest reservation. It highlighted that the Carantes heirs did not traditionally occupy the disputed land since entities with vested property rights, such as Camp John Hay and Baguio Country Club, had been occupying it before the IPRA was enacted.

See Also

A new horizon in luxury living unveils in Brittany’s Bern Baguio

The DENR-CAR further found that the reference points of the ancestral titles issued to the Carantes heirs were erroneously plotted, which led to overlapping with other areas.

Based on these grounds, petitioner Republic of the Philippines filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus before the Court of Appeals, mainly arguing that the NCIP had committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the Carantes heirs’ application. It also alleged that the Baguio Townsite and Forbes Forest Reservations, where the disputed land was located, were exempt from the coverage of the IPRA.

The Court of Appeals denied the petition. It held that, among others, the IPRA concedes to the validity of prior land rights recognized or acquired through another process before its effectivity, and mandates the recognition of ancestral rights and titles. (To be continued)