Republic of the Philippines vs. National Commission on Indigenous Peoples, et al.

Baguio City is exempted from the coverage of the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act except for native title to land, which requires proof of ownership since time immemorial where the indigenous peoples are in open, continuous, and actual possession of the land up to the present. The source of right for a native title claim is a vested property right, and the application for title is not through IPRA but through the usual land titling process.

The case involves the application of the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act (Republic Act No. 8371) to lands within Baguio City. Section 78 of the IPRA provides that Baguio City is governed by its own charter, which the Court interpreted as exempting the city from the law's coverage except for native title. The doctrine of native title, as recognized in Cariño vs. Insular Government, is an exception to the Regalian Doctrine, which holds that all lands of the public domain belong to the State. Under native title, lands held under a claim of private ownership since before the Spanish Conquest are presumed never to have been public lands.

The heirs of Lauro Carantes filed a Petition for Recognition and Delineation of Ancestral Land Claim over properties within Baguio City, which was duly published, with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources representing the petitioner Republic in the proceedings. The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples and other respondents supported the claim, maintaining that the heirs of Carantes sufficiently established their occupation and possession over the ancestral land since time immemorial.

The Department of Environment and Natural Resources discovered, however, that the land claimed had not been traditionally occupied by the heirs of Carantes and their ancestors. The land had been occupied by other individuals with vested property rights, such as Camp John Hay, Baguio Country Club, and Baguio Water District, and had been declared and recognized as a forest park reservation. Unlike the claimants in Cariño, the heirs of Carantes failed to show that they had been possessing and occupying the land since time immemorial.

The Supreme Court, in its July 11, 2023 Decision, granted the Petition for Review and set aside the Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution, ruling that Certificates of Ancestral Land Titles cannot be issued in favor of the heirs of Lauro Carantes. The Court held that Baguio City is exempted from the coverage of the IPRA as Section 78 of the law provides that Baguio City is governed by its own charter, but that the law does not overturn the doctrine in Cariño vs. Insular Government which recognizes ownership of land occupied and possessed since time immemorial.

Respondents National Commission on Indigenous Peoples, Heirs of Lauro Carantes and Joan L. Gorio, and Other Heirs of Lauro Carantes filed their respective Motions for Reconsideration, raising substantially the same arguments. They insisted that petitioner was not deprived of due process since the petition was duly published and petitioner was represented by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources in the proceedings. They maintained that Section 78 does not exclude Baguio City from the coverage of IPRA, and that the heirs of Carantes sufficiently established their occupation and possession over the ancestral land since time immemorial.

N/A — The decision does not recount the petitioner's arguments in the motions for reconsideration, as the resolution focuses on the respondents' arguments.

• Due Process: Respondents insisted that petitioner was not deprived of due process since the Petition for Recognition and Delineation of Ancestral Land Claim of the heirs of Carantes was duly published and petitioner was represented by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources in the proceedings.
• Section 78 Interpretation: Respondents maintained that Section 78 does not exclude Baguio City from the coverage of IPRA.
• Occupation and Possession: Respondents maintained that the heirs of Carantes sufficiently established their occupation and possession over the ancestral land since time immemorial.

• Baguio City Exemption from IPRA: Whether Section 78 of the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act excludes Baguio City from the law's coverage.
• Native Title Claim: Whether the heirs of Lauro Carantes sufficiently proved their occupation and possession of the claimed ancestral land since time immemorial to support the issuance of Certificates of Ancestral Land Titles.
• Due Process: Whether petitioner was deprived of due process in the proceedings before the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples.

• Baguio City Exemption from IPRA: Yes. Baguio City is exempted from the coverage of the IPRA except for native title to land, that is, ownership since time immemorial where the indigenous peoples are still in actual possession of the land. Section 78 of the IPRA provides that Baguio City is governed by its own charter.
• Native Title Claim: No. The heirs of Carantes failed to prove the element of occupation and possession of the claimed ancestral land since time immemorial. The land has been occupied by other individuals with vested property rights, such as Camp John Hay, Baguio Country Club, and Baguio Water District, and has been declared and recognized as a forest park reservation.
• Due Process: The Court found no compelling reason to overturn its July 11, 2023 Decision, as the issues raised by respondents, including the due process claim, had already been duly considered and passed upon by the Court.

• Baguio City Exemption from IPRA: The Court reiterated that Baguio City is exempted from the coverage of IPRA except for native title. Native title as defined in IPRA refers to "pre-conquest rights to lands and domains which, as far back as memory reaches, have been held under a claim of private ownership by [indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples], have never been public lands[,] and are thus indisputably presumed to have been held that way since before the Spanish Conquest." The Court cited Federation of Coron, Busuanga, Palawan Farmer's Association, Inc. vs. Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, which clarified that the concept of native title is an exception to the Regalian Doctrine. Under the Regalian Doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the State, and the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land. The only exception is native title to land, or ownership of land by Filipinos by virtue of a claim of ownership since time immemorial and independent of any grant from the Spanish Crown.
• Native Title Claim: The Court found that the heirs of Carantes failed to prove the element of occupation and possession of the claimed ancestral land since time immemorial. As discovered by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the land claimed has not been traditionally occupied by the heirs of Carantes and their ancestors. The land has been occupied by other individuals with vested property rights, such as Camp John Hay, Baguio Country Club, and Baguio Water District, and has been declared and recognized as a forest park reservation. Unlike the claimants in Cariño, the heirs of Carantes failed to show that they have been possessing and occupying the land since time immemorial. Hence, there is no presumption that the land is private and no ownership may be recognized in favor of the heirs of Carantes. What is needed for a claim of native title to prevail is proof that the indigenous peoples are in open, continuous, and actual possession of the land up to the present. The source of right is a vested property right; therefore, the application for the title is not through the IPRA but through the usual land titling process.
• Due Process: The Court found no compelling reason to overturn its July 11, 2023 Decision, as the issues raised by respondents had already been duly considered and passed upon by the Court in its assailed Decision.

• Native Title — Native title refers to "pre-conquest rights to lands and domains which, as far back as memory reaches, have been held under a claim of private ownership by [indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples], have never been public lands[,] and are thus indisputably presumed to have been held that way since before the Spanish Conquest." The Court applied this doctrine to hold that the heirs of Carantes failed to prove the requisite occupation and possession since time immemorial, as the land had been occupied by other individuals with vested property rights.
• Regalian Doctrine (Jura Regalia) — All lands of the public domain belong to the State, and the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land. All lands not appearing to be clearly under private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. The only exception to the Regalian Doctrine is native title to land, or ownership of land by Filipinos by virtue of a claim of ownership since time immemorial and independent of any grant from the Spanish Crown.
• Baguio City Exemption under Section 78 of IPRA — Baguio City is exempted from the coverage of the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act except for native title to land. The claim of the heirs of Carantes over properties within Baguio City may not be recognized under IPRA, but the law does not overturn the doctrine in Cariño vs. Insular Government which recognizes the ownership of land occupied and possessed since time immemorial.

• "Baguio City is exempted from the coverage of the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act (IPRA) except for native title to land, that is, ownership since time immemorial where the indigenous peoples are still in actual possession of the land." — This states the core ruling of the resolution, clarifying the scope of IPRA's application to Baguio City.
• "Native title as defined in IPRA refers to 'pre-conquest rights to lands and domains which, as far back as memory reaches, have been held under a claim of private ownership by [indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples], have never been public lands[,] and are thus indisputably presumed to have been held that way since before the Spanish Conquest.'" — This defines the controlling doctrine of native title under IPRA.
• "The only exception in the Regalian Doctrine is native title to land, or ownership of land by Filipinos by virtue of a claim of ownership since time immemorial and independent of any grant from the Spanish Crown." — This articulates the relationship between native title and the Regalian Doctrine, as cited from Federation of Coron.
• "What is needed for a claim of native title to prevail is proof that the indigenous peoples are in open, continuous, and actual possession of the land up to the present. The source of right is a vested property right. Therefore, the application for the title is not through the IPRA but through the usual land titling process." — This states the requisites for a native title claim and the proper procedural avenue for such claims.

• Cariño vs. Insular Government, 41 Phil. 935 (1909) — Controlling precedent recognizing the ownership of land occupied and possessed since time immemorial. The Court distinguished this case, noting that unlike the claimants in Cariño, the heirs of Carantes failed to show possession and occupation since time immemorial.
• Federation of Coron, Busuanga, Palawan Farmer's Association, Inc. vs. Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 884 Phil. 564 (2020) — Followed for its clarification that native title is an exception to the Regalian Doctrine. The Court cited this case for the proposition that bare assertions of ownership and possession are insufficient to substantiate a native title claim.

• Section 78, Republic Act No. 8371 (Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act of 1997) — Provides that Baguio City is governed by its own charter, which the Court interpreted as exempting Baguio City from the coverage of IPRA except for native title.
• Section 3(1), Republic Act No. 8371 (Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act of 1997) — Defines native title as "pre-conquest rights to lands and domains which, as far back as memory reaches, have been held under a claim of private ownership by [indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples], have never been public lands[,] and are thus indisputably presumed to have been held that way since before the Spanish Conquest."

Gesmundo, C.J., Caguioa, Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, Rosario, J. Lopez, Dimaampao, Marquez, Kho, Jr., and Singh, JJ., concurred.

N/A — No dissenting opinions were noted in the resolution.