Cruz and Europa vs.

Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources

(Note: Facts culled from Separate Opinions do not be confused!)
FACTS: To seek genuinely the recognition of Indigenous Peoples right to own and
possess their ancestral land and considering the concept of native title and the principle
of parens patrie, RA 8371 or the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 was passed.
The said law grants ICCs/IPs a distinct kind of ownership over ancestral domains and
ancestral lands. IPRA was enacted precisely to implement constitutional provisions on
the recognition and promotion of the rights of IPs within the framework of national unity
and development, protect their rights over the ancestral lands and ancestral domains
and recognize the applicability of customary laws governing property rights or relations
in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domains.
However, petitioners brought a suit for prohibition and mandamus assailing the
constitutionality of the statute. Several parties filed their Motion for Leave to Intervene.
Specifically, petitioners assails the validity of IPRA in view of its alleged infringement of
the constitution insofar as it deprives the State ownership over lands of the public
domain as well as minerals and other natural resources, which is alleged to be violative
of the Regalian Doctrine embodied in Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution. More
specifically, the assailed provisions pertain to: (1) certain provisions on occupation and
utilization of ancestral land and ancestral domain; (2) the all-encompassing definition of
ancestral domain and ancestral land which might cover private land, hence violative of
private persons rights; (3) powers, jurisdiction of NCIP and making customary laws
applicable to settlement of disputes involving ancestral lands and ancestral domain,
hence violative of due process.
ISSUE: W/N IPRA violates the Regalian Doctrine and other provisions of the
Constitution
HELD: NO. The Supreme Court did not reach the necessary majority to declare IPRA
unconstitutional (7 in favor, 7 not infavor). Pursuant to Rule 56, Section 7 of the Rules of
Civil Procedure, the petition was dismissed.

Separate Opinions of Justice Puno and Kapunan:

Justice Puno:
1. As to question of ancestral domain and land come in the purview of Land of the
public domain
State first the history (land grabbing, displacement)
Ancestral domains and ancestral lands are the private property of
indigenous people and do not constitute part of land of public
domain
Note that AD and AL are not the same,; AD are ALL areas
belonging to ICC/IP held under a claim of ownership, occupied or
possessed by ICCs/IPs by themselves or through their ancestors,
communally or individually since time immemorial. It is not limited to
lands. AL, on the other hand is limited to lands only; not merely
occupied and possessed but are also utilized by ICCs/IPs

Native Title refers to ICCs/IPs preconquest rights to lands and

domains held under a claim of private ownership as far as memory
reaches. These lands are deemed never to have been public lands
and are indisputably presumed to have been held that way since
before the Spanish conquest. The rights of ICCs/IPs to their
ancestral domain by virtue of native title has already been
recognized in Cario vs. Insular Govt.

Per Cario case, native title presumes that the land is private and
was never public. To further bolster that ancestral lands and
ancestral domains are private in character, IPRA is a positive act
which converts ancestral land to public agricultural land which can
be disposed by the State.

In addition, Section 3 of Article XII on National Economy and

Patrimony classifies lands into 4: agri, forest/timber, mineral land
and national parks. Section 5 of the same Art. mentions ancestral
lands and ancestral domains but it does not classify them under
any of the said four categories.

Regalian doctrine states that all land of the public domain and all
natural resources are owned by the State. Examining IPRA, there is
nothing in the law that grants to ICCs/IPs ownership over the
natural resources within their ancestral domains. The right in their
ancestral domain includes ownership, however, ownership thereof,
per Section 7 (a) only includes lands and bodies of water and not
natural resources therein.

Our Consti and jurisprudence clearly declare that the right to claim
ownership over land does not necessarily include the right to claim
ownership over natural resources. Further, ownership over natural
resources remain with the State and IPRA merely grants ICCs/IPs
the right to manage them (management/stewardship)

Kapunan:

Regalia doctrine does not negate native title to lands held in private ownership
since time immemorial. The theory of jura regalia is nothing more than a natural
fruit of conquest.
Natural resources not covered; IPRA does not confer right of ownership over
natural resources. The mere fact that ancestral domains definition includes
natural resources is of no moment. It serves only as a yardstick which points out
what properties are within the ancestral domains.
On divestment of jurisdiction, it only pertains to land and not natural resources
NCIP is still under the control of the President