Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
ISSUE:
We see no reason why a conflict of law rule should apply when no conflict of law Did the areas in question cease to have the status of forest or other inalienable lands
situation exists. A conflict of law situation arises only when: (1) There is a dispute of the public domain?
over the title or ownership of an immovable, such that the capacity to take and
transfer immovables, the formalities of conveyance, the essential validity and effect HELD:
of the transfer, or the interpretation and effect of a conveyance, are to be determined; No, the said areas are still classified as forest land.The issue of whether or not
and (2) A foreign law on land ownership and its conveyance is asserted to conflict respondent and her predecessors-in-interest have been in open, exclusive and
with a domestic law on the same matters. Hence, the need to determine which law continuous possession of the parcels of land in question is of little moment. For,
should apply. unclassified land cannot be acquired by adverse occupation or possession;
occupation thereof in the concept of owner, however long, cannot ripen into private
ownership and be registered as title.
In the instant case, none of the above elements exists. A forested area classified as forest land of the public domain does not lose such
classification simply because loggers or settlers have stripped it of its forest cover.
Parcels of land classified as forest land may actually be covered with grass or planted
The issues are not concerned with validity of ownership or title. There is no question to crops by kaingin cultivators or other farmers. "Forest lands" do not have to be on
that the property belongs to the Philippines. The issue is the authority of the mountains or in out of the way places. The classification is merely descriptive of its
respondent officials to validly dispose of property belonging to the State. And the legal nature or status and does not have to be descriptive of what the land actually
validity of the procedures adopted to effect its sale. This is governed by Philippine looks like.
Law. The rule of lex situs does not apply.
ISSUE:
Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution?
HELD:
No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution. Examining the IPRA,
there is nothing in the law that grants to the ICCs/IPs ownership over the natural
resources within their ancestral domain. Ownership over the natural resources in the
ancestral domains remains with the State and the rights granted by the IPRA to the
ICCs/IPs over the natural resources in their ancestral domains merely gives them, as
owners and occupants of the land on which the resources are found, the right to the
small scale utilization of these resources, and at the same time, a priority in their
large scale development and exploitation.
Additionally, ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not part of the lands of the
public domain. They are private lands and belong to the ICCs/IPs by native title,
which is a concept of private land title that existed irrespective of any royal grant
from the State. However, the right of ownership and possession by the ICCs/IPs of
their ancestral domains is a limited form of ownership and does not include the right
to alienate the same.