Spouses Maliones vs. Timario

A claim of ownership based on native title cannot be adjudicated in a citizen suit filed under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, as the resolution of such claims requires the expertise of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, and the reliefs available in a citizen suit are limited to the protection, preservation, or rehabilitation of the environment.

The subject land is situated in Am-amoting, Batacang/Ambango in Barangay Data, Sabangan, Mountain Province, and is classified as "outside the Alienable and Disposable Zone" under Land Classification Map No. 2017, certified on July 30, 1956, by the Director of Forestry. Tax declarations for portions of the land had been issued in the names of Spouses Maliones et al. The respondents, Timario et al., are residents and individuals who trace their roots to Barangay Data and claim communal use of the land for pasturing animals, barangay picnics, and scout jamborees. The dispute implicates the intersection of environmental protection, the Regalian Doctrine, and indigenous peoples' rights under the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act (Republic Act No. 8371).

On October 30, 2015, Mario Somebang Timario, Jr. and several other residents of Barangay Data, Sabangan, Mountain Province (collectively, Timario et al.) filed a citizen suit through a petition for enforcement of rights and obligations under environmental laws, cancellation of tax declarations, issuance of temporary and permanent environmental protection orders, mandamus, cost of suit, and attorney's fees. They alleged that the subject land — situated in Am-amoting, Batacang/Ambango in Barangay Data — was communal public land where the Datanians freely pastured farm animals and held barangay picnics and scout jamborees. The land was classified as "outside the Alienable and Disposable Zone" under Land Classification Map No. 2017, certified on July 30, 1956, by the Director of Forestry. Timario et al. did not claim ownership over the subject land but sought the cancellation of tax declarations that had been issued in the names of Spouses Robles and Rose Maliones, Spouses Eduardo and Rosita Quiño, George Bati-el, and Eugenio Sawate (collectively, Spouses Maliones et al.).

Timario et al. accused Spouses Maliones of conducting earth-moving and bulldozing activities that destroyed the natural landscape, converting the land into a wide vegetable plantation, using fertilizers and pesticides contributing to soil, water, and air pollution, and causing potential soil erosion and contamination of rice terraces below. They claimed alnus trees were cut and pine trees were girdled. Spouses Quiño were accused of fencing a portion of the subject land, thereby depriving the public of free access, and of engaging in kaingin activities. Sawate and Bati-el were likewise accused of claiming ownership over portions of the subject land. Invoking the precautionary principle under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, Timario et al. prayed that Spouses Maliones et al. be ordered to cease introducing improvements and that the DENR-CENRO, the Provincial and Municipal Assessors, and the Punong Barangay be compelled to enforce environmental laws.

Spouses Maliones et al. denied the accusations as fabrications and exaggerations. Spouses Maliones asserted that no earth-moving activity was done and only soil refurbishment was conducted on an old garden; that no soil erosion could result because the land was "plate-like" and water stagnated during the rainy season; that no alnus trees were cut and no pine trees girdled; and that the fence was erected to protect organic farm vegetables from animals. They claimed the subject land was the ancestral land of the late John Miguel, first declared for tax purposes in 1970 and continuously paid by him until his death in 1986, after which his heirs took over and eventually sold the land to Spouses Maliones in 2012. Sawate, for his part, contended that Timario et al. had no personality to sue because they were in pari delicto, being holders of tax declarations over adjacent property and likewise engaged in farming. The Provincial and Municipal Assessors maintained they were restricted from issuing certified copies of tax declarations without authority from the declarant, as required by the Manual on Real Property Appraisal and Assessment Operations.

On November 5, 2015, the RTC issued a Temporary Environmental Protection Order. After trial, the RTC rendered judgment on October 10, 2016, making the TEPO permanent, issuing a writ of continuing mandamus, and directing the DENR, the Punong Barangay, and the assessors to undertake protective and corrective measures. The RTC gave credence to the DENR certification that the area was outside the alienable and disposable zone and ruled that, absent a positive act of government converting the land, it remained beyond the commerce of man. The CA affirmed on appeal, holding that Timario et al. had legal standing under the citizen suit framework, that the Regalian Doctrine created a presumption of State ownership unrebutted by the tax declarations, and that the RTC had not ordered outright cancellation of the tax declarations but merely directed investigation into their propriety.

• Native Title and Regalian Doctrine: Spouses Maliones argued that the Regalian Doctrine was not applicable to the subject land because it did not fall under the category of public domain, claiming instead that it was ancestral land acquired through native title from their predecessor-in-interest, the late John Miguel, who first declared it for tax purposes in 1970. They maintained there was no basis to cause the cancellation of their tax declarations.
• Improper Forum for Ownership: Spouses Quiño, Sawate, and Bati-el argued that the case arose from a civil action for enforcement of environmental laws, not an action for registration of land, and that the identity of the subject land was not established because its metes and bounds were not proven by preponderance of evidence.
• Factual Findings Assailed: Spouses Maliones et al. challenged the CA's conclusion that an actual or imminent threat existed attributable to their activities and that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology of Barangay Data residents was being prejudiced, which arguments entailed a review of factual findings.

• Communal Public Land: Timario et al. insisted they did not claim the subject land as ancestral or individual private land but as communal public land for all Datanians and community people from nearby barangays. They averred the land was part of the public domain classified as timber or forest land and was never classified or delineated as ancestral domain or ancestral land by the NCIP in accordance with Republic Act No. 8371.
• Environmental Violations: Timario et al. maintained that Spouses Maliones et al.'s activities — earth-moving, bulldozing, fencing, kaingin, use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and tree cutting — violated Presidential Decree No. 705 and threatened irreversible environmental damage, warranting the reliefs granted.

• Native Title vs. Environmental Protection: Whether Spouses Maliones et al. may invoke their claim of ownership over the property allegedly obtained by native title to deter the Court from granting the protection order, writ of continuing mandamus, and other reliefs prayed for by Timario et al.
• Propriety of Reliefs: Whether the reliefs awarded by the RTC and affirmed by the CA are proper.

• Native Title vs. Environmental Protection: No. A claim of ownership based on native title cannot be adjudicated in a citizen suit for environmental protection, as such claims fall under the primary jurisdiction of the NCIP, and the reliefs available in a citizen suit under Section 1, Rule 5 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases are limited to environmental protection, preservation, and rehabilitation.
• Propriety of Reliefs: Yes. The reliefs awarded — including a permanent Environmental Protection Order and a writ of continuing mandamus — are within the authority granted by Sections 1 and 3, Rule 5 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, and the factual findings of the RTC, affirmed by the CA, established actual or imminent environmental threats attributable to petitioners' activities on presumptively public forest land.

• Native Title vs. Environmental Protection: The concept of native title refers to pre-conquest rights to lands and domains held under a claim of private ownership by indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs), which are deemed never to have been public lands and are indisputably presumed to have been held that way since before the Spanish Conquest. While indigenous ownership exists even without a paper title, formal recognition must be embodied in a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) issued by the NCIP. A citizen suit under Section 5, Rule 2 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases liberalizes standing to enforce environmental laws but does not confer authority to resolve ownership disputes. Section 1, Rule 5 enumerates the reliefs available — protection, preservation, or rehabilitation of the environment, attorney's fees, costs of suit, and rehabilitation programs — none of which includes adjudication of title. Resolving the native title claim would necessarily require identifying and recognizing parties as ICCs/IPs, a task that falls under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, which directs that matters requiring the expertise of an administrative body must first be addressed there. The NCIP, under Section 66 of Republic Act No. 8371 and Section 5, Rule III of the 2003 NCIP Rules of Procedure, has jurisdiction over claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs, including disputes over ancestral lands/domains. However, as clarified in Santos vs. Gabaen, the NCIP's jurisdiction arises only when the dispute is between or among parties belonging to the same ICC/IP. Furthermore, it would be premature to determine the rights of the parties when the identity of the subject property had not been settled; a full-blown trial on the merits would be required to properly identify, delineate, and recognize the purported ancestral land. As for the claim that the tax declarations were cancelled, a careful reading of the RTC dispositive showed no outright cancellation was ordered — the assessors were merely directed to cause cancellation "where appropriate," contemplating an investigation and opportunity to be heard.

• Propriety of Reliefs: The remaining arguments raised by Spouses Maliones et al. assailing the CA's conclusion on the existence of an actual or imminent threat entailed a review of factual findings, which cannot be undertaken in a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, a mode limited to questions of law. No exception to this rule was shown. The factual findings of the RTC, affirmed by the CA, are binding, especially when carrying the full concurrence of the appellate court. Those findings declared the existence of an actual or imminent environmental threat attributable to Spouses Maliones et al.'s activities — occupying, fencing, clearing, planting, and building on the disputed land — which violated Sections 51, 52, 53, and 78 of Presidential Decree No. 705, the Revised Forestry Code. No evidence showed that petitioners obtained the requisite permits or authorization to enter, occupy, and clear forest land. The CENRO had expressly declared that Spouses Maliones' earth-moving activities were being conducted on a portion of the public forest. The reliefs awarded — a permanent Environmental Protection Order and a writ of continuing mandamus — are expressly authorized under Section 3, Rule 5 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, which permits conversion of a TEPO to a permanent EPO and issuance of a writ of continuing mandamus directing acts effective until the judgment is fully satisfied.

• Regalian Doctrine — All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The doctrine creates a presumption that land classified as forest or timber is public land owned by the State, and a mere claim of private ownership does not convert public property into private property. The presumption can only be rebutted by evidence of a positive act of the government declaring the land alienable and disposable. In this case, the DENR certification that the subject land was outside the alienable and disposable zone triggered the presumption, which Spouses Maliones et al. failed to rebut.

• Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction — If a case requires the expertise, specialized training, and knowledge of an administrative body, relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before resort to the courts. Applied here, the Court declined to resolve claims of native title and recognition as ICCs/IPs, holding that these matters fall under the primary jurisdiction of the NCIP, the government agency vested with technical knowledge and expertise in indigenous peoples' rights.

• Citizen Suit — Under Section 5, Rule 2 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, any Filipino citizen in representation of others, including minors or generations yet unborn, may file an action to enforce rights or obligations under environmental laws. The traditional rule on standing is liberalized, relaxing the requirement of personal and direct interest. The reliefs available under Section 1, Rule 5 are limited to the protection, preservation, or rehabilitation of the environment, attorney's fees, costs of suit, and rehabilitation programs — and do not include adjudication of ownership disputes.

• Native Title — Refers to pre-conquest rights to lands and domains held under a claim of private ownership by ICCs/IPs as far back as memory reaches, which have never been public lands and are indisputably presumed to have been held that way since before the Spanish Conquest. Formal recognition, when solicited, shall be embodied in a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT). While indigenous ownership exists even without a paper title, recognition and delineation of ancestral domains require proceedings before the NCIP.

• NCIP Jurisdiction — Under Section 66 of Republic Act No. 8371, the NCIP has jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs, provided the parties have exhausted customary law remedies. As clarified in Santos vs. Gabaen, this jurisdiction arises only when the dispute is between or among parties belonging to the same ICC/IP. The NCIP has original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving disputes over ancestral lands/domains, and primary jurisdiction to identify ICCs and IPs.

• "A careful study of the quoted provision reveals that the authority to resolve an issue of ownership is not among the reliefs that may be awarded in a citizen suit involving an environmental case." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi on the scope of reliefs available in a citizen suit, establishing that ownership disputes are beyond the ambit of environmental proceedings.

• "This Court cannot simply accept and declare the parties as indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples without violating the doctrine of primary jurisdiction." — This defines the Court's limitation in adjudicating native title claims, anchoring the ruling on the doctrine of primary jurisdiction and the NCIP's specialized mandate.

• "It would be premature to make a final determination on the rights and obligations of the parties based on Spouses Maliones et al.'s claim of ownership when the identity of the subject property has not yet been settled." — This underscores the evidentiary insufficiency that precluded adjudication of the native title claim, emphasizing the need for a full-blown trial on the merits for proper identification and delineation of ancestral land.

• "The factual findings of the trial court are binding upon this Court especially when the same carry the full concurrence of the appellate court, as in this case." — This restates the well-settled doctrine on the binding nature of concurrent factual findings of the trial and appellate courts, barring re-litigation of facts in a Rule 45 petition limited to questions of law.

• Cruz vs. Secretary of Environment & Natural Resources, 400 Phil. 904 (2000) — Cited for the definition of native title as pre-conquest rights to lands and domains held under a claim of private ownership by ICCs/IPs, deemed never to have been public lands. Followed as the canonical formulation of the native title concept.
• Euro-Med Laboratories, Phil., Inc. vs. Province of Batangas, 527 Phil. 623 (2006) — Cited for the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, which requires that matters requiring administrative expertise be first addressed before the appropriate administrative body. Followed.
• City Government of Baguio City vs. Atty. Brain Masweng, 597 Phil. 668 (2009) — Cited for the NCIP's mandate and jurisdiction over claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs. Followed.
• Santos vs. Gabaen, G.R. No. 195638, March 22, 2022 — Cited for the clarification that the NCIP's jurisdiction under Section 66 of R.A. No. 8371 arises only when the dispute is between or among parties belonging to the same ICC/IP. Followed as a limiting construction of NCIP jurisdiction.
• Unduran vs. Aberasturi, 771 Phil. 536 (2015) — Cited through Santos for the proper construction of Section 66 of R.A. No. 8371 regarding the NCIP's jurisdictional scope. Followed.
• Sama vs. People, G.R. No. 224469, January 5, 2021 — Cited for the recognition of the NCIP as the lead government agency for the protection and promotion of IP/ICC identities and rights, with primary jurisdiction to identify ICCs and IPs. Followed.
• Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas vs. Aurora Pacific Economic Zone and Freeport Authority, G.R. Nos. 198688 & 208282, November 24, 2020 — Cited for the principle that indigenous ownership over ancestral domain exists even without a paper title and precedes the IPRA, with a State-issued title being merely a symbol of ownership. Followed.
• Heirs of Racaza vs. Spouses Abay-abay, 687 Phil. 584 (2012) — Cited for the rule that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is limited to questions of law and that this Court will not analyze or weigh evidence already considered below. Followed.

• Section 2, Article XII, 1987 Constitution — The Regalian Doctrine provision declaring all lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, and other natural resources owned by the State, with the exception of agricultural lands not alienable. Applied to establish the presumption that the subject land, classified as forest, is owned by the State absent a positive act of government declaring it alienable and disposable.
• Section 5, Rule 2, Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC) — Defines the citizen suit, allowing any Filipino citizen to file an action to enforce environmental rights on behalf of others, including minors or generations yet unborn. Applied to uphold the legal standing of Timario et al.
• Section 1, Rule 5, Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases — Enumerates the reliefs available in a citizen suit, limited to environmental protection, preservation, rehabilitation, attorney's fees, costs of suit, and rehabilitation programs. Applied to determine that adjudication of ownership is not among the authorized reliefs.
• Section 3, Rule 5, Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases — Authorizes the court to convert a TEPO to a permanent EPO or issue a writ of continuing mandamus in the judgment, effective until fully satisfied. Applied to uphold the permanent EPO and writ of continuing mandamus issued by the RTC.
• Section 66, Republic Act No. 8371 (IPRA) — Vests the NCIP with jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs, subject to exhaustion of customary law remedies. Applied to establish that native title and ICC/IP recognition claims fall under NCIP jurisdiction, not the Court in an environmental case.
• Section 11, Republic Act No. 8371 (IPRA) — Provides that rights of ICCs/IPs to ancestral domains by virtue of native title shall be recognized and respected, with formal recognition embodied in a CADT. Applied to show that while indigenous ownership exists without a paper title, formal recognition requires NCIP proceedings.
• Section 5, Rule III, NCIP Administrative Circular No. 1, Series of 2003 — Delineates the jurisdiction of the NCIP Regional Hearing Offices and the Commission over claims involving ancestral lands/domains, property rights, and cancellation of CADTs/CALTs. Applied to reinforce the NCIP's primary jurisdiction over the ownership and recognition issues raised.
• Sections 51, 52, 53, and 78, Presidential Decree No. 705 (Revised Forestry Code) — Prohibit unauthorized occupancy, cultivation, kaingin, and destruction of forest lands. Applied to hold that petitioners' activities on presumptively public forest land were unlawful, as no permits or authorizations were shown.
• Section 84, Presidential Decree No. 705 — Referenced in the RTC dispositive regarding the requirement for compliance before issuance of tax declarations over forest land. Applied in the directive to the assessors to desist from issuing tax declarations without compliance with this provision.

Lazaro-Javier, M. Lopez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concurred. Leonen, SAJ. (Chairperson), wrote a separate concurring opinion, the text of which is not included in the provided source.