IPRA LAW: ITS EFFECTS ON PROPERTY LAW IN THE PHILIPPINES –Mary Grace B.

Pacatang

ANCESTRAL DOMAINS & ANCESTRAL LANDS

The ancestral domains and ancestral lands intended by the law addresses a major
problem of ICCs/IPs which is loss of land and such is a vital concern in terms of their
survival. The issue raised insofar as the grant of ancestral land and domains to ICCs/IPs as
a communal property does not violate the presumption of constitutionality as the said lands
are not part of public domain and is considered to have never been part of the public domain
as provided by Section 5, Article XII in relation to Section 3 of the same article. IPRA
categorically declares ancestral lands and domains held by native title as never to have
been public land. The intent of this law is to grant communal ownership to ICCs/IPs to their
lands by virtue of native title which are presumed to have been held under a claim of
ownership and indisputably presumed to have been held the same way before the Spanish
conquest.
PRIVATE LAND OWNERSHIP
The one issue in consideration on Section 3a&b of IPRA law involving ownership particularly
by providing for an all-encompassing definition of “ancestral domains” and “ancestral lands”
which might even include private lands found within said areas, sections of the law violate
the rights of private landowners and ancestral domains may include public domain. Land
titles and the concept of individual land ownership under the Civil law is alien to ICCs/IPs
and IPRA grants a distinct kind of ownership for them over ancestral lands and ancestral
domains. But it must be noted that such cited section expressly provide that definition of ancestral
lands and ancestral domains are subject to section 56 to which the property rights referred belong to
those acquired by individuals, whether indigenous or non-indigenous peoples. Said provision makes
no distinction as to the ethnic origins of the ownership of these “property rights”. The IPRA
recognizes and respects “vested rights” regardless of whether they pertain to indigenous on non-
indigenous peoples. Where the law does not distinguish, the courts should not distinguish. What
IPRA only requires is that these “property rights” already exist and/or vested upon its effectivity.
Native title as established in the case of Cariño vs Insular Government is the concept
of a private land title that has existed irrespective of any royal grant from the State in
difference from ownership from acquisitive prescription from the State. Ownership by native
title presupposes that the land in question has always been private and has been held by its
possessor and his predecessors-in-interest since time immemorial and is deemed never to
have been part of the public domain.
X
PROPERTY LAW | Atty. Ophelia Pilar Rubio-Zamora
 IPRA LAW: ITS EFFECTS ON PROPERTY LAW IN THE PHILIPPINES –Mary Grace B. Pacatang

ACQUISITION OF ALIENABLE PUBLIC LANDS

Another issue of consideration is on the constitutional provision Sec.3 Article 12 on
acquisition of alienable public lands that Filipino citizens may acquire no more than 12
hectares of alienable public land, whether by purchase, homestead, or grant. IPRA however,
speaks of no area or term limits to ancestral lands and ancestral domains since it covered
everything held, occupied or possessed “by themselves or through their ancestors
communally or individually since time immemorial and those which may no longer be
exclusively occupied by them but from which they traditionally had access to for their
subsistence and traditional activities. Yet, the right of ownership and possession by the
ICC/IP of their ancestral domains is a limited form of ownership and does not include the
right to alienate the same. It does not entitle to a Torrens title but to a Certificate of Ancestral
Domain Title (CADT).
NATURAL RESOURCES OWNERSHIP
Priority rights in the exploration, development and utilization of the natural resources
in the ancestral domains remain with the State and it merely grants the right to management
and conservation. This implies that there is a superior entity which is the State who has the
power to grant preferential rights over the resources to whoever it chooses. Regalian
doctrine reserves to the State all the natural wealth that may be found even if the land where
the discovery is made be private or ancestral domain.
CONFLICTS AND OVERLAPS
In practice, while there are mechanisms put in place in the implementation of the law,
there are still conflicts and overlaps identified which hamper the implementation of land use
and reform programs affecting the public, private and those considered to be covered by
ancestral domains. Further review and adjustments within the legal framework and the land
administration framework need to be conducted.

X
PROPERTY LAW | Atty. Ophelia Pilar Rubio-Zamora
 IPRA LAW: ITS EFFECTS ON PROPERTY LAW IN THE PHILIPPINES –Mary Grace B. Pacatang

X
PROPERTY LAW | Atty. Ophelia Pilar Rubio-Zamora