Cruz and Europa v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources

[186] the power of the State to extinguish these titles has remained firmly entrenched.[187] Under the IPRA, the Philippine State is not barred form asserting sovereignty over the ancestral domains and ancestral lands.[188] The IPRA, however, is still in its infancy and any similarities between its application in the Philippines vis-à-vis American Jurisprudence on aboriginal title will depend on the peculiar facts of each case. (c) Why the Cariño doctrine is unique In the Philippines, the concept of native title first upheld in Cariño and enshrined in the IPRA grants ownership, albeit in limited form, of the land to the ICCs/IPs. Native title presumes that the land is private and was never public. Cariño is the only case that specifically and categorically recognizes native title. The long line of cases citing Cariño did not touch on native title and the private character of ancestral domains and lands. Cariño was cited by the succeeding cases to support the concept of acquisitive prescription under the Public Land Act which is a different matter altogether. Under the Public Land Act, land sought to be registered must be public agricultural land. When the conditions specified in Section 48 [b] of the Public Land Act are complied with, the possessor of the land is deemed to have acquired, by operation of law, a right to a grant of the land.[189] The land ceases to be part of the public domain,[190] ipso jure,[191] and is converted to private property by the mere lapse or completion of the prescribed statutory period. It was only in the case of Oh Cho v. Director of Lands[192] that the court declared that the rule that all lands that were not acquired from the government, either by purchase or grant, belong to the public domain has an exception. This exception would be any land that should have been in the possession of an occupant and of his predecessors-in-interest since time immemorial. It is this kind of possession that would justify the presumption that the land had never been part of the public domain or that it had been private property even before the Spanish conquest.[193] Oh Cho, however, was decided under the provisions of the Public Land Act and Cariño was cited to support the applicant's claim of acquisitive prescription under the said Act. All these years, Cariño had been quoted out of context simply to justify long, continuous, open and adverse possession in the concept of owner of public agricultural land. It is this long, continuous, open and adverse possession in the concept of owner of thirty years both for ordinary citizens[194] and members of the national cultural minorities[195] that converts the land from public into private and entitles the registrant to a torrens certificate of title. (3) The Option of Securing a Torrens Title to the Ancestral Land Indicates that the Land is Private. The private character of ancestral lands and domains as laid down in the IPRA is further strengthened by the option given to individual ICCs/IPs over their individually-owned ancestral lands. For purposes of registration under the Public Land Act and the Land Registration Act, the IPRA expressly converts ancestral land into public agricultural land which may be disposed of by the State. The necessary implication is that ancestral land is private. It, however, has to be first converted to public agricultural land simply for registration purposes. To wit: "Sec. 12. Option to Secure Certificate of Title Under Commonwealth Act 141, as amended, or the Land Registration Act 496-- Individual members of cultural communities, with respect to their individually-owned ancestral lands who, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, have been in continuous possession and occupation of the same in the concept of owner since time immemorial or for a period of not less than thirty (30) years immediately preceding the approval of this Act and uncontested by the members of the same ICCs/IPs shall have the option to secure title to their ancestral lands under the provisions of Commonwealth Act 141, as amended, or the Land Registration Act 496.