Republic of the Philippines

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
2nd Floor N. dela Merced Bldg., Corner West and Quezon Ave., Quezon City
Tel No.373-9532. Trunkline 575-1200
Website: ncip.gov.ph

IN RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE NCIP Case No. 2015-005-OJ

SEGREGATION OF THE
MANOBO ICC ANCESTRAL
DOMAIN FROM THE CADT OF
THE MAMANWA ICCs AND
AMENDMENT OF CADT NO. 048

Manobo Indigenous Cultural

Communities of Kinalablaban,
Cadianao, Claver; Surigao del Norte,
as represented by Datu Danganan
Anilao P. Dawog,
Petitioner,

-versus-

Mamanwa Tribes of Barangay

Taganito and Urbiztondo of the
Municipality of Claver, Surigao del
Norte, as represented by Renante
Buklas and Alicio Patac,
Respondent.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -/

MANIFESTATION WITH COMPLIANCE

May it please the Honorable Commission En Banc:

By way of Manifestation

1. The undersigned Acting Regional Legal Officer, thru Regional

Director of NCIP Region XIII, respectfully submit this
Manifestation and Compliance in connection with the Decision of
the Honorable Commission En Banc (CEB) promulgated on
December 14, 2016 and the Memorandum Order No. 012 signed by
the Honorable Chairperson Leonor T. Oralde-Quintayo on 02
February 2017.

Page 1 of 26
 2. Acting on the said Memorandum Order, the undersigned Regional
Director promptly informed the parties of the instant case, the
Provincial Offices of Surigao del Norte and Surigao del Sur through
their respective Provincial Legal Officers and the Regional Legal
Officer to proceed with the administrative review of the case.

The Honorable CEB may take

cognizance of this Manifestation
and Compliance based on its
residual jurisdiction over the case.

3. Pertinent portion of the Decision states:

“As to the first issue, it would seem that the NCIP

Provincial Office has found just cause for the
correction/segregation of the subject matter area
disputed by the two parties, apparently finding
errors in the delineation of the boundaries for
CADT 48, when it recommended the actual survey
of this traditionally recognized boundary
demarcation between the two communities.
Without necessarily upholding the propriety of the
findings of the NCIP Provincial Office, this CEB
finds that the procedure undertaken by the said
office is the proper proceedings for the resolution
of the boundary issue between the two contending
IPs/ICCs; and the same must be allowed to
proceed to its logical conclusion.

Thus, as to the second issue, the petition for

segregation is best pursued in the on-going
administrative proceedings now pending with the
NCIP Provincial Office, for possible review with
the Regional Office, and not with this CEB, acting
in its quasi-judicial capacity.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, there is no

cogent reason to sustain this petition and the same
is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.

However, the Clerk of this Commission is hereby

directed to transmit the pieces of evidence
submitted as part of the records of this petition to
the NCIP office where the issues raised in this
case is now pending for latter’s appreciation. The
said office is directed to act on the matter with
proper dispatch.

SO ORDERED.
Page 2 of 26
 (Boldfacing supplied).

4. The instant case was dismissed without prejudice. Since this

Compliance and Manifestation is filed within the five (5) year
period from its promulgation, then the same is not yet immutable –
hence, pleadings may be filed for this Honorable CEB’s
appreciation. Pursuant to the 2014 NCIP Revised Rules of
Procedure (Rule for brevity), actions may be directly filed to the
Honorable CEB, if the same has the effect of amending or
modifying its previous Decision.

5. The undersigned officer humbly cites Section 1-B, No. 03, Rule III,
of the same Rule, which provides for the exclusive and original
jurisdiction of the Honorable CEB. This pertains to cases that deems
to, among others, amend its previous Decision. The provision states:

RULE III-JURISDICTION

“Section 1. Jurisdiction of the NCIP. The NCIP shall

exercise jurisdiction over all claims and disputes
involving rights of the ICCs/IPs and all cases
pertaining to the implementation, enforcement, and
interpretation of R.A. 8371, including but not limited
to the following:

B. Original and Exclusive Jurisdiction of the

Commission En Banc:

1. Petition for cancellation of registered CADTs and

CALTs alleged to have been fraudulently acquired by,
and issued to, any person or community as provided
for under Section 54 of R.A. 8371, provided that such
action is filed within one (1) year from the date of
registration;

2. Actions for cancellations of Certification

Precondition (CP), Certificate of Non- Overlap
(CNO), issued by the NCIP, as well as, rescissions of
FPIC-MOA; and

3. Any other case that deems to vary, amend, or

revoke previously issued rulings, resolutions, or
decisions of the Commission en banc.”

(boldfacing supplied)

6. With all due respect, the administrative review made by the

Regional Office of all documents relative to the allegations in the
Petition may amend the previous Decision of the Honorable CEB.
At the outset, the Honorable CEB correctly ruled that the Petition
Page 3 of 26
 cannot be properly decided in the exercise of its quasi-judicial
function.

7. On the other hand, it is humbly opined that at the time the Petition
was filed, the 2014 Revised Rules was not yet in effect. Thus,
Petitioner was justified in directly filing its Petitioner before the
Honorable CEB without violating Section 2 B, Rule III thereof. At
any rate, the ground set forth in the Petition is among those
enumerated instances wherein the Honorable CEB may directly hear
and decide the case.

8. Section 1 Rule III, of the same rule provides:

“B. Original and Exclusive Jurisdiction of the

Commission En Banc:

xxx

Section 2. Filing of Cases Directly with the

Commission en banc Not Allowed. – No case shall
be brought directly to the Commission en
banc except for cases outlined in Section 1,
Paragraph B, Rule III, of this Rules.

9. Clearly, the above prohibition applies to the Petition. Admittedly,

the Petition is not among those enumerated cases for direct recourse
to the Honorable CEB.

10. However, this Manifestation and Compliance falls within the

phrase “Any other case that deems to vary, amend, or revoke previously
issued rulings, resolutions, or decisions of the Commission en banc”.
And, this action can be separately treated from the proceedings before
this Honorable CEB when it decided the Petition.

11. For instance, it is humbly submitted that the Decision of this

Honorable CEB may declare that the Petition is not in the nature of
a Petition for cancellation of “registered CADTs” since this only
applies to CADTs already registered before the Registry of Deeds.
CADT 48 is a title pending review by the Registered of Deeds
which is tasked to exclude, if any, boundaries in the CADT.

12. Moreover, the Decision of this Honorable CEB may likewise

declare that the Petition partake the nature of an administrative relief
cognizable either before the Provincial Office or Regional Office.
Particularly, the allegations in the Petition are one for Opposition
contemplated under Section 34 of NCIP A.O. No. 04, series of
2012, which relief may still be filed after the delineation process.

Page 4 of 26
 13. Petitioner alleged:

“4. During the delineation process of such

Mamanwa CADT application, 4, 820 hectares of
land in Kinalablaban belonging to the territory of
the Manobo ICCs were erroneously included. The
Manobo ICCs, as adjacent owners, were never
consulted and were never informed of such CADT
activities pertaining to the Mamanwa ancestral
domain, denying them the right to contest the
process.”

5. Upon learning the unjust inclusion of such tribal

territory, the Manobo ICCs, through the
Kinalablaban Sectoral Tribal Council
(KISTRICO), immediately filed complaints with the
Ancestral Domain Office for the manifestation and
correction of such error.”

(Boldfacing supplied)

14. Clearly, the above allegations do not make out a case for a Petition
for Cancellation of registered CADTs grounded on fraud. Rather, it
is one for opposition to the delineation subject for administrative
proceedings rather than an adjudicatory one. That the Petitioner
alleged “fraud” in their Position Paper submitted before the
Regional Office on March 22, 2018 is of no moment since what is
controlling is the Petition filed before the Honorable CEB.

Discussion

15. For purposes of this Manifestation, the undersigned Officer deemed

it wise to reiterate the brief facts of the instant case.

I.
THE CASE

16. In 2012, a Petition was directly filed before this Honorable CEB by
Datu Danganan Anilao P. Dawog and Kinalablaban Sectoral Tribal
Council (KISTRICO) of the Manobo IPs/ICCs. Petitioners seek to
correct the boundary line of Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title
(CADT) No. R13-CLA-0906-048 (CADT 048 for brevity) by
segregating Sitio Kinalablaban from the title.

17. Petitioners amended their Petition on July 13, 2016 but did not
implead the NCIP-Provincial Office as Nominal Party.

18. On the other hand, Respondents are the Mamanwa IPs/ICCs

represented by Dakula Renante Buklas and Dakula Alicio Patac.
Page 5 of 26
 19. In 2006, CADT No. 048 was issued by the Honorable CEB over the
Municipalities of Alegria, Bacuag, Claver, Gigaquit, and Tubod
Surigao del Norte and Kitcharao, Agusan del Norte pursuant to
Resolution No. 46-2006-AD dated September 22, 2006.

20. On record, CADT 048 is 48,870.0263 hectares of land covering two

Provinces (Surigao del Norte and Agusan del Norte), which are rich
with mineral resources and presently operated by several mining
companies.

21. Prior to the filing of the Petition, Petitioner initially lodged a

request for the then Regional Director to intervene but was advised
to first settle the matter at the provincial level. Thus, on September
29, 2009, a meeting was presided by Elpedio Montenegro in the
presence of some representatives from the Regional Office. In the
course thereof, Elvira Catuburan, the then TMSD Chief, manifested
before the crowd that CADT No. 048 is pending exclusion and
inclusion within the claimed CADT area. As a result, Respondents,
through their representative Datus expressed willingness to undergo
joint “ground survey”1.

22. Then, on October 8, 2009, a Field Based Investigation (FBI) was

conducted by Mr. Elpedio Montenegro, a Tribal Affairs Assistant of
the Surigao del Norte Provincial Office.

23. In 2009, Petitioner filed a complaint before the Regional Hearing

Office (RHO) against Respondents docketed as NCIP No. RXIII-
031-09 on November 11. Unfortunately, the complaint only
furnished the RHO and failed to have its complaint verified. Almost
five years later, RHO dismissed the complaint2.

24. Aggrieved, KISTRICO immediately filed complaints before the

Ancestral Domain Office (ADO) – Central Office, with the aim to
correct the erroneous inclusion of Sitio Kinalablaban into the
technical descriptions contained in CADT No. 048.

25. Negotiations then ensued. As a result, the parties reached into a

settlement with respect to the Royalty fees of mining companies by
signing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on March 10, 2010
dividing royalty share from the mining operations in Kinalablaban
area.

1
Minutes prepared by Elpedio Montenegro, Tribal Affairs Assistant, of the meeting held on September 29,
2009 held at Brgy. Cadianao, Claver, Surigao del Norte.
2
On July 09, 2014, Atty. John Edwin C. Luneta of RHO dismissed the 2009 complaint of Petitioner, without
prejudice. RHO opined that Petitioner should have sought the assistance of the Technical Management
Services Division (TMSD) before asking this Office to adjudicate on the matter.

Page 6 of 26
 26. On May 2011, the Honorable CEB initiated a conflict resolution
conference to ease the growing dispute. But no final conciliation
was reached – as it ended in a “deadlock” although it upheld the
provisions of the MOA on July 26, 2012.

27. On October 24, 2012, the Honorable CEB issued a Resolution

lifting the release of royalty fees in favor of CADT No. 048 and had
it placed in escrow. It also directed Regional Office to facilitate and
fast track “the resolution of the remaining dispute on domain
boundary between the Mamanwa and Manobo ICCs within the
period of six (6) months”.

28. Meetings before the Regional Office then take its course. Notably,
the Respondents failed to appear despite notice from then Regional
Director, Atty. Pinky Grace Pabelic. These meetings were held on
February 10, 2015, March 3, 2015 and May 14, 2015.

I.
ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE HONORABLE CEB

29. The core issue the Parties have raised before the Honorable CEB is
“whether CADT No. 048 issued in favor of the Mamanwas should be
subject to correction/segregation in terms of the alleged error in the
delineation of boundaries as claimed by the Manobos; and whether
such petition for segregation can be resolved can be resolved in the
instant action”3.

30. On the part of Respondents, they raised the following issues as well
in their Memorandum, to wit:

A. THAT THE CLAIMS OF PETITIONER KISTRICO

ARE MERE SELF-SERVING ALLEGATIONS;

B. THAT PETITIONER FAILED TO FOLLOW THE

PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN SECTION 52 (g)
OF REPUBLIC ACT 8371;

C. THAT PETITIONERS ARE PRECLUDED FROM

QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF THE
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE ISSUED TO
MAMANWA IPs/ICCs;

D. THAT THE FIELD BASED INVESTIGATION

CONDUCTED BY ELPIDIO MONTENEGRO BE
CONSIDERED VOID, FOR THE SAME
FUNCTION IS VESTED WITH THE REGIONAL

3
Page 157, Transmittal.

Page 7 of 26
 HEARING OFFICER OR THE PROVINCIAL
LEGAL OFFICER, SUCH THAT:

1. THE INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY

MR. MONTENEGRO WAS MADE
WITHOUT THE DIRECT PARTICIPATION
OF THE RESPONDENTS; and

2. THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF MR.

MONTEGRO ARE UNENFORCEABLE
AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS.

31. Although the Regional Office is guided by the foregoing issues at

this juncture, it is bereft of any authority to adjudicate the same.
Hence, this Compliance is limited to its mandate to conduct
administrative review as directed by the Honorable CEB.

III.
REVIEW OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Both the Provincial Office and the

Regional Office conducted jointly its
proceedings to give way for possible
conciliation of the parties giving
primacy on their customary laws.
But the same proceeding was
attended only by Petitioner.

32. The Provincial Office made a series of coordination with the

Regional Office through the Office of the TMSD to possibly discuss
the possible ground survey and settle boundary conflicts as well
between Petitioners and Respondents. Thus, the “ongoing
proceedings” referred to in the Decision is actually a joint
proceedings by both Provincial and Regional Office in an effort to
dispatch the issues administratively and peacefully.

33. However, when the result of the Field Based Investigation (FBI)
came out which Mr. Elpedio A. Montenegro facilitated,
Respondents felt that the proceedings was “one sided”4. This
prompted them not to participate in any meetings before the
Regional Office.

34.Despite notice, Respondents failed to appear until April 13, 2018

when the undersigned Officer reached them out.

35. As far as the Regional Office is concerned, there was no clear

confrontation between Petitioner and Respondents yet as both have

44
Minutes, April 13, 2018 Meeting held at Hayanggabon, Claver, Surigao del Norte.

Page 8 of 26
 actively participated before the Honorable CEB which in turn
dismissed the Petition on December 14, 2016. This gave way to an
administrative proceeding before the Regional Office which process
is limited to the review of the actions undertaken by the Provincial
Office and available documents relative to the delineation process.

36. Hence, by way of compliance, the undersigned Regional Director

issued Memorandum No. 132-A which constituted a team to
conduct review of the Petition and its relevant proofs. Hereto
attached is the copy of Memorandum No. 132-A marked as Annex
“A”.

37. Accordingly, the undersigned Officer was designated as head of the

review team. Request for copies of the documents before this
Honorable CEB was granted with the transmittal from the
Commission Clerk of documents which were duly received by the
undersigned Officer on February 05, 2018.

38. It can be recalled that the RHO had earlier dismissed the Complaint
of Petitioner on 09 July 2014, which provides:

“Wherefore, based on the foregoing premises, and for

purposes of de-clogging this RHO of pending and
archived case dockets, this case is dismissed without
prejudice of official filing later, on the basis of the
findings of the NCIP TMSD, after it conducted the
necessary and proper field investigation/validation.”

39. Notably, the RHO did not rule upon whether it has jurisdiction over
the Complaint of Petitioner but cited de-clogging of cases as reason
for the dismissal. It advised Petitioner to participate first in the
proceedings before the Regional Office through the TMSD.

40. It turned out, however, that NCIP TMSD failed to have the parties
meet during the February 10, March 3 and May 14, 2015 meetings.
During these dates, only Petitioner appeared.

IV.
RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION

The Regional Office conducted a

thorough review of the documents
submitted by the parties including
the outcome of the April 13, 2018
Meeting with Respondents.

41. Acting on the Memorandum 132-A signed by the Regional

Director, the undersigned Officer conducted a thorough review of

Page 9 of 26
 the entire records of this case. The following documents now being
considered are result of the proceedings before the Provincial Office
up to this Honorable CEB, to wit:

a. Petition dated September 10, 2012;

b. Order dated June 9, 2015;
c. Motion to Admit Compliance;
d. Amended Petition dated July 13, 2016;
e. Letter addressed to Atty. Pinky Grace Pabelic dated July 29,
2015 with the attachments;
f. Order dated July 14, 2016;
g. Manifestation dated July 28, 2016;
h. Order dated August 26, 2016;
i. Memorandum of Petitioners;
j. Memorandum of Respondents;
k. Decision dated December 2016; and
l. Notice of Resolution.

42. Substantial documents related to the foregoing are likewise

embodied in the two (2) volumes Claim Book of CADT No. 048.

43. On top of these review, a meeting was initiated by the undersigned

officer to supplement the needed information on April 13, 2018.
Part of this meeting is for Respondents to confirm the veracity of
some documents which they may have signed or participated with.
For instance, Respondents submitted their Resolution condemning
the Waiver of Rights which they purportedly signed in favor of the
Petitioner.

44.On the part of the Petitioner, they were represented by Atty.

Wilfredo C. Rebuyon, Provincial Legal Office of NCIP - Surigao
del Sur. He filed a Position Paper attaching therewith Annexes “A”
to “E”, to wit:

a. Annex “A” - Photocopy of a Petition for

Identification, Delineation and Recognition of
Ancestral Domain and for the Issuance of
Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title filed by the
Mamanwa Indigenous Cultural Communities on
February 18, 2003;

b. Annex “B” - Photocopy of a Letter dated

February 10, 2005 signed by Melogen C.
Manlubatan for Datu Daengan Cecsar Bat-ao of
Surigao del Sur with an acknowledge receipt;

c. Annex “C” – Photocopy of a Letter dated April 01,

2005 unsigned by Melogen Manlubatan for Datu

Page 10 of 26
 Daengan Ceasar Bat-ao of Surigao del Sur but
with an acknowledge receipt;

d. Annex “D” - Photocopy of a Letter dated April

01, 2005 unsigned by Melogen Manlubatan for
Datu Dhaengan Ceasar Bat-ao, Sr. of Surigao del
Sur but with an acknowledge receipt. This letter
contains an invitation for the addressee to be
present at Sitio Kinalablaban, Brgy. Cagdianao,
Claver, Surigao del Norte;

e. Annex "E" – Photocopy of a Notarized Waiver of

Rights dated February 18, 2010 registered in the
Notarial Registry of Atty. Nerio L. Rosales;

45. Upon verification, the foregoing documents are faithful

reproduction from the documents in the Claim Book.

V.
PROFILE OF KINALABLABAN

The Profile of Sition Kinalablaban,

the contested area in the instant
petition

46. The instant Petition seeks to correct errors in CADT 048 which
included Sitio Kinalablaban, Cagdianao, Surigao del Norte. Thus,
the review sought to make a comprehensive search of its profile
based on existing records.

47. To be sure, the name “Kinalablaban” is not a registered political

subdivision of Claver Municipality. Rather, it is one of the Sitios in
Barangay Cagdianao. Kinalablaban is also called Kilometer 90.

48. The Claim Book is bereft of any boundary dispute resolutions,

pacts or agreements between and among Mamanwa or Manobo
IPs/ICCs despite the fact that this area is a boundary line between
Surigao del Norte and Surigao del Sur.

49.Since Kinalablaban is the boundary, it is possible that there are other

ethnic group possess the area.

50. In the enumeration of barangays enumerated in the CADT

application form, Brgy. Cagdianao, where sitio Kinalablaban is
included, was not mentioned when it was convenient for them to do
so.

Page 11 of 26
 51. Page 37 of the Executive Report, dated May 5, 2006, (attached in
Mamanwa claim book) Kinalablaban is defined as “derived from
Mamanwa word “yabyab” meaning male wild pig. Petitioner on the
other claimed that the name and definition is attributed to the
Manobo ethnolinguistic group.

52.On April 13, 2018, the Respondent Mamanwa changed their

position as to the meaning of the term Kinalablaban. They stated
that it is supposed to be Kinadlaban, something related to gathering
of honey.

Testimony of Elders considered

Kinalablaban as their burial ground,
and its river their fishing ground.

53. Page 50 in the Community Profile (Testimony of Elders) Section,

Volume I of Claim Book contains a Testimony of Datu Rizal
Boklas. He testified before the then Provincial Delineation Team on
05 December 2005 that Sitio Kinalablaban is their burial ground.
Datu Rizal Boklas further states:

“We pray/worship in the mountains of Gaun

presently named Mt. Legaspi. This is our sacred
place, a place where we come and worship. We
also considered Mt. Gaun as our hunting ground,
where we hunt wild pigs. We also settle conflicts
and differences in this place.”

“Aside from Mt. Gaun or Mr. Legaspi, there is

Mt. Dalin-agan which means “dwelling” this is
located in Kinalablaban. We also have Mt.
Balentian and Mt. Balentian and Mt. Magdagook,
a place we also considered sacred.”

“The burial ground is in Kinalablaban River. Our

forefather, Apo Tiago was buried there.”

“We still perform rituals such as “kahimunan”

and “Pangapog”.
(Boldfacing supplied).

54. On the other hand, Datu Vicente Bago testified on 18 October 2005
that a river in Sitio Kinalablaban is their fishing ground. Page 51 of
his Testimony of Elders is likewise found in Volume 01 of the
Claim Book, to wit:

“Our ancestral domain covers the shoreline of Claver

to the mountains. Mt. Magtangbod is the highest

Page 12 of 26
 mountain in Tuya-tuya. It is also the boundary between
Tuya-tuya and Katikuyan, Camam-onan, Gigaquit.
The rivers of Pangyog.

Cagdiano, Kinalablaban, Tuya-tuya and Daging and

Anaguton are our fishing grounds. Anaguton river, Mt.
Tuya-tuya and Lawinihan are our burial grounds
while Mt. Balantian is our worship area. We also settle
conflicts in this place. Mt. Legaspi (Gaun) and Dalin-
agan are our sacred place.”

(Boldfacing supplied).

55. It is stated in the testimony of Datu Rizal Boklas, a tribal leader of

Mamanua, that Kinalablaban is a home of Mamanwa IPs/ICCs based
on the findings that they bury their ancestor “as soon as possible”.

56. The foregoing testimonies are consistent with the result of an

interview on May 11, 2006 with Susan Bago, a Mamanwa elder.
Then Legal Officer Vicente B. Baldoza, Jr. asked her as follows:

“Interviewer: Asa nga lugar kamo maglubong sa inyong

patay?

Respondent: Sa Kinalablaban, Daging o Bayantian.

(In Kinalablaban, Daging or Bayantian.)”

57.Mamanwa tribal leaders further confirmed these testimonial

evidences on 13 April 2018. Datu Gedi and Datu Hurol manifested
as follows:

“ITEM NO. 2: ON THE CUSTOMARY MEANING OF

“KINALABLABAN”, CONSIDERING THAT THE
PETITIONER TREATED IT A MANOBO TERM
“YABYAB”. Atty. Monato asked the group what
“Kinalablaban” means and whether this term is a
Manobo or Mamanwa in origin.

Datu Gedi answered that “Kinalablaban” is derived

from a Mamanwa term “Kinadlaban” because it is a
symbol of their livelihood in the past. The term means
gathering of honeybees (“potyokan”). His grandfather
“Thiago” Gedi used to live there. He further alleged
that it was the visayan migrants who later changed the

Page 13 of 26
 name from “Kinadlaban” into “Kinalablaban”. Their
ancestors were buried in this place.

On the other hand, Atty. Monato said the Petitioner refer

this place as “Yabyab” or a wild boar. Datu Gedi
responded that while they may call it as such, the truth
remains that the name is directly derived from a
Mamanwa term “Kinadlaban”.

(Boldfacing supplied)

58. Moreover, Respondents identified the customary landmarks located

within Sitio Kinalablaban which were mentioned in their Claim
Book. These are names of places, which according to them, forming
part of Kinalablaban.

59. Again, reference of these meetings is hereto quoted in the Minutes

as follows:

Xxx

“Datu Joey Hurol added that attention must be had in

the Claim Book which do mention the names of rivers,
fishing and hunting grounds and “ampo-anan” (holy
ground). But in the final output, NCIP may have failed
to refer these places to Sitio Kinalablaban.

Atty. Monato then asked what these places are. Datu

Hurol enumerated them as follows:

1. Mimpawala;
2. Mimpatu-o;
3. Pinagkapugosan;
4. Bayanti-an;
5. Matauyog;
6. Kalalawason;
7. Bayongti-an;
8. Magkahuyog;

Datu Hurol said that if these names are Mamanwa in

nature, then these are more convincing than that of
the Manobo since they only know one term which is
“yabyab”.

Datu Juan Biog added that the municipality of Claver

was mentioned. Since Cagdianao formed part of
Claver, then it is understandable that Cagdianao is
part of its applied ancestral domain. Thus, he
concluded that Kinalablaban is part of Claver since
the latter was expressly included. Datu Hurol
supported this observation since the Petition itself
states Claver, although NCIP officers did not include
Page 14 of 26
 Kinalablaban or Cagdianao. It would be absurd,
according to Datu Gedi that Kinalablaban, is a
separate land area from Claver.

Atty. Monato referred back to the Petition and

confirmed that Claver is included.

Datu Gedi traced back history of Kinadlaban. He said

that since the time of Datu Rizal Buklas and Thiago
Gedi, there were only five (5) houses including theirs.
No Manobo can be seen in that area. He also added
that prior to the entry of mining companies in Claver,
the Mamanwa tribes were already in Kinadlaban.
Further, PGMC Mining Company recently
compensated their family for accidentally damaging
some of their burial grounds of their ancestor while
in operation. Datu Hurol was puzzled why NCIP made
no mention of Kinalablaban on its records.

Further, Datu Hurol manifested that on top of

Kinalablaban is Bayantian.

Datu Alicio Patac added that Kinalablaban is the

fishing ground of his family. Atty. Monato clarified
that this area is mountainous. Datu Patac answered
that it has rivers on it. xxx”

The Project Completion Report of

the Survey Team intentionally
surveyed Kinalablaban based on the
Ethnographic Data provided by the
Mamanwa IPs/ICCs.

60. Aside from the foregoing testimonies and manifestations, the

Project Completion Report5 implementing the Work Order Survey
confirmed that Kinalablaban river is the traditional fishing ground,
and its hillside burial ground of Mamanwa IPs/ICCs.

“B. Survey –
xxx
On the last week of March, the Survey team decided to
reroute our traverse and returned back to the original
station at Kinalablaban Kilometer 90 boundary
between Surigao del Sur and Surigao del Norte,
direct to the corner boundary of claver, SND and
Carrascal, SDS passing Mt. Legaspi or Dakulang
Banwa In Mamanwa dialect, their sacred ground. The
team’s access to this mountain is a little bit delayed
because the area is always foggy/cloudy. The team
installed their Camping Tent at the top of

5
Volume II, Claim Book.

Page 15 of 26
 Kinalablaban mountain, opposite area of Mt. Legazpi,
accrossed the main Kinalablaban river, the traditional
fishing ground of the Mamanwa tribe. At the hillside
of this mountain is a burial ground of the tribe.

Xxx

61. On the part of the Petitioner, Kinalablaban is Manobo in origin

derived from the word “Yabyab” or wild boar.

A. Petition for Direct CADT Application

62. Notably, Petition No. XIII-SDN-001-AD dated 18 February 2003

filed by Datu Emeliano Weling Gedi is silent as regards Sitio
Kinalablaban, let alone Cagdiano in filing up the information
“Location of Ancestral Domain” and “Area”.

63. Tribal Leaders of CADT 048 justified why the Petition is apparently
“silent” of Sitio Kinalablaban. On 13 April 2018, undersigned
officer met the Respondents.

64. The Minutes of the said meeting is herein quoted as follows:

“ITEM NO. 3: ON THE PETITION SIGNED BY THEN

CADT REPRESENTATIVE DATU EMILIANO GEDI.
Atty. Monato put the attention of Datu Gedi to the Petition
which he himself signed. The Petition was read to him in
toto and Atty. Monato showed to him his signature
appearing thereon for his confirmation. Datu Gedi
refused to read the same as he said his eyesight is poor. In
Items No. 12 and 13 of the Petition, Atty. Monato
manifested that nowhere it includes “Sitio Kinalablaban,
Brgy. Cagdianao, Claver” in the applied ancestral
domain.

Atty. Monato read the Petition as follows:

“12. Location of Ancestral Domain

Municipalities of Alegria, Bacuag,
Claver, Gigaquit, Tubod, Surigao del
Norte
13. Area Tag-anito, Capangdan-
Urbiztondo, Tiltilan, Palilihan,
Katikuyan, Pagbangayan, Bongogon,
Puyawon, Bayanti-an, Tumorok,
Linintian, Baliw, Little Baguio,
Poniente, Motorpool, Cawilan, San

Page 16 of 26
 Juan, Camp Edward, Perlda and
Budlingin”

Datu Joey Hurol responded that they have “muhon” or

landmark in Cagdianao. But Atty. Monato remind him
than a “muhon” is not an indicator of prior possession.
It is expected that there is one for it was surveyed
already.

Datu Emelinao Gedi said that it was NCIP who is

responsible for the preparation of the Petition. But they
could not recall who in NCIP prepared it. He could recall
that it was Manuel Elliarena and other from NCIP who
prepared the documents by excluding Cagdiano, Sitio
Kinalablaban.

ITEM NO. 04: ON THE SILENCE OF CLAIM BOOK

WHICH DID NOT MENTION THE LOCALITY OF
CAGDIANAO: Atty. Monato then turned the attention of
the group in the excerpts of the Claim Book. He narrated
that during the Social Preparation Activities, the NCIP
and the tribe would document the names and places. Part
of this process is to identify the history of each
Municipality or locality. Nowhere in the Social
Preparation Accomplishment Report documented
“Cagdianao”, let alone “Sitio Kinalablaban”.

Datu Gedi enumerated the officers of NCIP who are

responsible of excluding in expressly stating Cagdianao
and Sitio Kinalablaban in the SPAR. They were then
director Domingo Pareja, Elvira Catuburan, Manuel
Ellarina and Melogen Manlumbatan. Atty. Monato asked
what would be the motive of these officials in doing so.
Datu Gedi said he doesn’t know.”

(Boldfacing supplied)

65. Insofar as the Regional Office is concerned, these findings were

uncontroverted. The Petition neither contest nor dispute the findings
of PDT and RRT about Sitio Kinalablaban as worship and burial
grounds for Respondents.

66. The body of the Social Preparation Accomplishment Report

(SPAR) is apparently “silent” of Sitio Kinalablaban. As discussed
earlier, three Mamanwa elders namely, Datu Rizal Boklas, Datu
Vicente Bago and Susan Bago corroborate each of their testimony
about Kinalablaban being identified as fishing, worship and burial
ground.

B. Social Preparation Accomplishment Report (SPAR)

Page 17 of 26
 67. On May 05, 2006, a SPAR6 was endorsed by the then Regional
Director Domingo I. Pareja.

68. To make a clear grasp what are the areas being applied for and
endorsed, the heading of such endorsement is hereto quoted as
follows:

“FOR: The NCIP COMMISSION EN BANC

Central Office – Quezon City

THRU: Dir. MYRNA L. CAOAGAS

Bureau Director, Ancestral Domain Office

SUBJECT: EXECUTIVE REPORT RE:

APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF
ANCESTRAL DOMAINS TITLE (CADT) OF THE
MAMANWA TRIBE COVERING PORTIONS OF
BARANGAY BUDLINGIN, CAMP EDWARD, SAN
JUAN, IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF ALEGRIA; SITIO
BALIW, BARANGAY PAYAPAG, IN THE
MUNICIPALITY OF BACUAG; BARANGAY
HAYANGGABON, CAGDIANAO, TAG-ANITO,
SITIO CAPANGDAN, BARANGAY URBIZTONDO,
IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLAVER;
BARANGAY CAMAM-ONAN, BARAGAY
MAHANUB, IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF
GIGAQUIT; AND BARANGAY CAWILAN AND
MOTORPOOL, IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF TUBOD,
ALL WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF SURIGAO DEL
NORTE AND PORTIONS OF BARANGAYS
SIRINGANBLISS AND HINIMBANGON, PROVINCE
OF AGUSAN DEL NORTE.

xxx”

69. The foregoing mentioned “Portions”, so is possible that the

Respondents did not intend to include the entire area of the
enumerated places, and those not mentioned.

70.Should there be an indicative map submitted at the outset, areas

intended to be included in the application could be well considered.

C. Field Based Investigation

71. The next reference for consideration is the FBI conducted by

Elpedio Montenegro anent the issue of prior ownership and
possession in Kinalablaban. Mr. Montenegro appears to be working
with the Provincial Office as Tribal Affairs Assistant.

6
Volume I, Claim Book of CADT 048.

Page 18 of 26
 72. On October 27, 2009, the Regional Office received a copy of the
FBI result but the same was not reviewed for purposes of correction.

73. On its face, this one-page document submitted by Mr. Montenegro

was not signed by any of its identified informants, namely:

a. Mr. Piloteo R. Dagasdas,

b. Mrs. Leona Nasayao,
c. Mr. Herminigildo A. Gede, and
d. Datu Alfredo Olorico.

74. Two (2) of the four informants are migrants allegedly working as
historians while the rest are members of the Mamanwa IPs/ICCs.

75. Culled from its contents, the FBI finds:

“EVALUATION:

1. The above 2 non-IP historians: Mr. Piloteo Dagasdas and

Mrs. Leona Nasayao have testified honestly what they
have known about the presence and existence of the
Mamanwa tribe of Urbiztondo and Tag-anito, Claver,
Surigao del Norte.

2. While, Mr. Herminigildo Gede/Bendoy testified sincerely

and honestly what he knows about the existence and
occupation of the Manobo tribe at Kinalablaban areas,
during the pre and post war time.

3. Collaborating oral testimony – Datu Alfredo Olorico

testified that the original ancestors of the Mamanwa tribe
of Tag-anito and Urbiztondo is the Gede/Hidi and Parao
Clans. Bago and Boklas families were IP migrants from
Jaliobong and Bangonay, Jabonga, Agusan del Norte. The
Bago family arrived earlier.

4. In concurrence of the validated testimonies of the aged

remants of the Angae Clan, dated October 5, 2009 and
historically affirmed by Mrs. Leona Nasayao Mr.
Herminigildo Gede/Bendoy, Manobo tribe is the
legitimate claimant of Kinalablaban area, Cagdianao,
Claver, Surigao del Norte.

(Signed)
ELDPEDIO A. MONTENEGRO
Datu Kagawasan
Tribal Affairs Assistant I

76. A second look at the above format shows that the whole report itself
constitutes the findings of an interview.
Page 19 of 26
 D. Perimeter Survey implementing the Work Orders

77. Petitioners alleged in their Position Paper7 that fraud is clear during
the implementation of the Work Order Survey of CADT 48 based on
the dates appearing on the letters addressed to Datu Daegangan
Cesar Bat-ao. Petitioner, however, did not dispute the fact that
although these letters were belatedly served, these were received by
the addressee. Within the period of February 15 until March 2005
when the Work Orders were implemented, Petitioner did not
interpose its objection to the perimeter survey.

78. The Position Paper dated March 20, 2018 succinctly states:

“The fact that the Petition for CADT Application

signed by the CADT representative did not include
Cagdianao, Claver, Surigao del Norte as part of their
claim only shows that the title is anomalous. This is
like X applying for title to Lot A, but the agency
authorized to issue title did not only approve the
application, it also included Lot B in the approved
title! Where in the world could we find this? This is
simply legally indefeasible (sic).

To claim that there was inadvertence, mistake is

negated by the fact that the application is a public
document. It was even subjected to rigorous RRB
(Regional Review Board) review and CEB
deliberation. Hence, inadvertence does not lie here,
but fraud.

Moreover, the survey seemed to be surreptitiously

undertaken, take a look at these:

a. An Invitation Letter dated February 10, 2005 from

the Acting Provincial Officer of NCIP-Surigao del
Norte addressed to Datu Daegangan Cesar Bat-ao
about AD survey to be undertaken on February 15,
2005. The same invitation Letter was received by
the Provincial Officer of Surigao del Sur,
unfortunately, only on February 25, 2005: the
survey was already done.

b. Another invitation Letter dated April 1, 2005

already received by Datu Daegangan Cesar Bat-
ao, but unsigned by the Acting Provincial Office----
this is invalid. Another copy of the same Invitation
Letter was attached to the Claim Book---this time
signed by the Acting Provincial Officer but was not
7
See Position Paper marked as Annex “B” and series.

Page 20 of 26
 served to the addressee. These documents only
show the intrinsic invalidity of CADT-048.”

(Boldfacing supplied).

79. From the foregoing, the Petitioner accused the Provincial Office of
intentionally excluding them from witnessing/participating the
ground perimeter survey in Kinalablaban otherwise known as
“Kilometer 90” on February 2005. Petitioner further alleged that the
notice to Datu Bat-ao representing the Manobo IPs/ICCs in Surigao
del Norte was served only on February 25, 2005 when the survey
was already completed.

80.The was no indicative map was required by then delineation team

to be submitted by the Respondents, and no conflict dispute
resolution despite the fact of the presence of Manobo ICC/IP in the
boundary.

81.It can be inferred from the foregoing that the perimeter survey was
not in order because the addressee Datu Bat-ao of Surigao del Sur
failed to timely received the notices for whatever reason. Although
Petitioner did not dispute the fact that these letters were duly
received within the month of February 2005 when the perimeter
survey was still on-going.

VI.
ON THE ALLEGED WAIVER OF RIGHTS

82. On 13 April 2018, undersigned Officer was able to present to the

Respondents the copy of Waiver of Rights. Two of its signatories
are present, namely Datu Emeliano Gedi and Datu Ferdinand Sagsag
Lebrigo.

83. Respondents vehemently deny having signed the said Waiver of

Rights. They were able to present during the April 13, 2018 Meeting
at Hayanggabon, Claver with the undersigned Officer several Tribal
Resolutions which condemned the alleged Waiver of Rights.

84.Again, reference is on the excerpts of that Meeting, to wit:

Xxx

“ITEM NO. 06: ON THE WAIVER OF RIGHTS

PURPORTEDLY SIGNED BY TRIBAL LEADERS OF
CADT 48. Atty. Monato showed a document to the
group denominated as “Waiver of Rights”. He read

Page 21 of 26
 and translated the contents thereof, and portions of
which provides:

“3. That we interposes no objection from the NCIP

segregation of the 4,825 hectares ancestral domain
area being deducted and/or waived from out control
area of 48,780 hectares in favor of KISTRICO-
Manobo tribe;

1. That we welcome the NCIP decision to

segregate/separate the area either at the NCIP Tribal
Court; NCIP Commission En Banc; for the same is in
conformity to IPRA-R.A. 8371 and customary laws of
both the Mamanwa-Manobo Tribe;”

While the document is being read, the audience

reacted by interrupting Atty. Monato. After it was
read, Datu Gedi, denied having signed the same
document for he and Datu Anilao Dawog have not met
on the date (February 18, 2010) it was purportedly
signed. Atty. Monato asked him if he remembered
having signed it since his name appears on it. He then
enumerated the signatories who are: DATU
EMELIANO HEDI, DATU FERDINAND SAGSAG
LEBRIGO, DATU MARIO BIOG PAHO, DATU NURI
KALISANGAN NGAHAG, MR. AQUILINO MOLINA
SAMBOANG.

Datu Gedi again denied having signed the same

document and argued that it is fictitious for the
following observations and counter-evidences:

1. One of its signatories had long died. In

particular, Datu Nuri Kalisangan Ngahag had
long died in 1978 and it is impossible for her to
sign it;
2. The signature of Datu Ferdinand Sagsag
Lebrigo appears to be forgery;
3. Elpedio Montenegro, a then NCIP Officer,
connived with Commander Jack to make such
document;
4. A Tribal leader from Placer who is not a
member of CADT 48 signed the document;
5. Mr. Aquilino Molina Samboang, a signatory is
not a member of CADT 48;
6. There has been a Tampuda long before CADT
48 between the Manobo tribes of Surigao Sur
and the Mamanwa tribes of Surigao del Norte
regarding their traditional boundary. Thus, the
document is a subterfuge. This Tampuda was
again repeated;

Page 22 of 26
 7. On February 12, 2013, the Tribal Council of
CADT 48 have signed a Tribal Resolution. An
Excerpt of which is herein quoted:

“SANGLIT, adunay nadawat namu nga

waiver of rights nga matod pa bulontaryo nga
gihimo ni Datu Emeliano Gede, Ferdinand
Sagsag Librigo, Datu Mario Biod Pajo, Nuri
Kalisangan Ngahag ug Mr.Aquilino Molina
Samboang;
SANGLIT, si Datu Emeliano Gede ug
Ferdinand Sagsag Librigo uban sa kasikbit
nga mga lideres ug konseho nagpamatuod nga
ang pirma nga gipakita sa maong dokumento
dili insakto ug gani ang pangalan sayop pa
ang spelling ug kini us aka dakong
panlimbong ug panpanamastamas sa
kustumbre ug tradisyon sa tribung Mamanwa;

SANGLIT, nakakantar pa gayod sa maong

dokumento nga girepresentahan ni Elpedio
Montenegro, and Provincial Officer sa NCIP
sa maong kasulatan nga walay klarong
pagtugot ug pagkonsenti sa maong Probinsya;

SANGLIT, usa sa nakapirma sa maong

dokumento diin gipitsahan niadtong Pebrero
6, 2010 nga si Datu Nuri Kalisangan Ngahag
dugay ra nga namatay niadtong pang tuig
1978;

SANGLIT, tataw ug klaro nga ang maong

dokumento usa sa makadaot sa kustombre ug
tradisyon tungod sa pagpanlimbong ang
pagpanglapas sa among katungod;

TUNDOG NIINI, kami hugot nga nagsalikway

sa maong dokumento kay tataw ug klaro nga
usa kini ka pagpanlimbong ug
pagpanamastamas sa among katungod
pinasubay sa among naangdang lumadnong
balaod kultura ug tradisyon;

DUGANG PA, kadtong mga hingtungdan

personalidad nga nagpasiugda niini kun
nagbuhat, kami hugot nga nagkauyon nga
among pasakahan ug kaso;”

The above document was handed by Datu Gede to

Atty. Monato who requested that he be given a copy.
Hereto attached is the copy of this document marked
as Annex “B”; xxx”

Page 23 of 26
 a. The Mamanwa IPs/ICCs though their tribal leaders have
unanimously condemned the document by issuing Resolution
to that effect on February 12, 2013. Excerpt of the Resolution
which contents are quoted above is again reiterated as
follows:

“ xxx

TUNDOG NIINI, kami hugot nga nagsalikway sa

maong dokumento kay tataw ug klaro nga usa kini
ka pagpanlimbong ug pagpanamastamas sa among
katungod pinasubay sa among naangdang
lumadnong balaod kultura ug tradisyon;

DUGANG PA, kadtong mga hingtungdan

personalidad nga nagpasiugda niini kun nagbuhat,
kami hugot nga nagkauyon nga among pasakahan
ug kaso;”

A copy of the above Resolution is hereto marked and attached as

Annexes “C” and series.

VII.
ON CERTAIN DOCUMENTS RESPONDENTS
MAY HAVE SIGNED

Respondents denied having

signed a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) with Petitioner
Datu Anilao Dawog for a
compromise.

85. Part of the proceedings before the Regional Office in coordination

with the Honorable CEB is to facilitate the conciliation process
between the parties. Hence, a MOA with Petitioner and Respondent
was apparently signed by both Petitioner and Respondents on March
10, 2010.

86. Under the said MOA, the parties agreed in part, to “have a 50/50
sharing of all the benefits and royalty fees including the payment of
damages to the ancestral domain resulting from the mining
operation of both the PGMC Mining Corporation and Shenzou
Mining Corporation over the contested area” and that, “their
respective 50% royalty share derived from the mining operation of
PGMC and Shenzou Mining Corporation shall be deposited directly
to their individual bank accounts and both parties shall have their
Page 24 of 26
 individual and distinct rights to directly follow-up, transact business
and/or received what is due for them as the case may be, from the
mining company operating in Kinalablaban area”.

87. Again, Respondents denied having entered into a compromise

agreement with Petitioner Dawog citing they never met him before.
During the April 13, 2018 meeting, they further argued that the
MOA should be revisited because they never met Petitioner Dawog
face to face. Should there be any agreement with him, Respondents
treated it only as “handog” or gift. Thus, Respondents argue that the
MOA should neither be construed as a waiver of their rights over
Kinalablaban area, nor an offer of to compromise with the
Petitioner8.

88. Apart from MOA, Respondents deny having met Petitioner Anilao
Dawog for purposes of compromising the Kinalablaban area in
Petitioner’s favor. Respondents further manifested that Petitioner
Dawog is not the real party in interest in the instant case since his
ancestral domain is in Lanuza, Surigao del Sur and there was even
no authorization given to him by the Manobo IPs/ICCs of
Kinalablaban area9.

89. Finally, Respondents manifest that anent to preparation of the

Petition, it was the Provincial Office and not them who typed the
applied area, hence, Kinalablaban was not expressly mentioned
thereon.10

VIII.
OBSERVATION

90. There is a possibility that unintentional acts or omissions were

committed in the procedural aspect during the conduct of
delineation which if undertaken could have given a different result
in the amount of area approved in favor of CADT 048.

91.However, the undersign and other Provincial Legal Officers

conducted the review of the documents, left to the Commission En
Banc the appreciation of the allegations, defenses and documents
presented by both parties. After all, CEB is proper venue to correct
the errors in issued CADT and the exclusive jurisdiction in this case.
And by way of Recommendation

8
Minutes of the April 13, 2018 Meeting. Ibid.,
9
Ibid.,
10
Ibid.,

Page 25 of 26
 PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully recommended before
this Honorable Commission En Banc to give due course to this Manifestation
and Compliance.

23rd of April 2018, Butuan City (for Quezon City, Metro Manila).

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

ATTY. MARCELIANO P. MONATO III

Acting Regional Legal Officer

Reviewed by:

ATTY. JOSE DUMAGAN JR.

Regional Director

Copy furnished:

- Clerk of the Commission, CEB

NCIP Central Office, Quezon City
- Respondents Datu Alicio Patac and Datu Renante Bokla
Brgy. Urbiztondo, Claver, SDN.
- Petitioner KISTRICO
thru Atty. Wilfredo Rebuyon
NCIP-SDS, Tandag City
- NCIP Provincial Office, Surigao del Norte.
Surigao City, Surigao del Norte
- Chief, TMSD

Page 26 of 26