The Supreme Court has ruled that the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) lacks the authority to issue Certificates of Ancestral Land Titles (CALTs) or Certificates of Ancestral Domain Titles (CADTs) for properties within the townsite reservation areas of Baguio City. This decision clarifies that Baguio City is governed by its charter and that reclassification of lands within its townsite reservation requires an act of Congress, not NCIP action. The ruling upholds property rights and maintains the townsite reservation’s intended public purpose.

Baguio’s Lands: Can IPRA Trump Townsite Reservation Status?

This case arose from the Republic of the Philippines challenging the NCIP’s issuance of Certificates of Ancestral Land Title (CALTs) to the heirs of Cosen Piraso and Josephine Molintas Abanag. The NCIP, through Resolution Nos. 107-2010-AL and 108-2010-AL, recognized the private respondents’ rights over certain lands in Baguio City based on native title, as provided under Article XII, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution and Republic Act No. 8371 (RA 8371), also known as the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA). The Republic, however, argued that Section 78 of the IPRA specifically excludes Baguio City from the law’s general provisions regarding ancestral lands, and thus, the NCIP lacked jurisdiction to issue CALTs for lands within the Baguio Townsite Reservation.

The central legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the NCIP had the authority to issue CALTs for lands within Baguio City’s townsite reservation, considering Section 78 of the IPRA. This section states:

SECTION 78. Special Provision. — The City of Baguio shall remain to be governed by its Charter and all lands proclaimed as part of its townsite reservation shall remain as such until otherwise reclassified by appropriate legislation: Provided, That prior land rights and titles recognized and/or acquired through any judicial, administrative or other processes before the effectivity of this Act shall remain valid: Provided, further, That this provision shall not apply to any territory which becomes part of the City of Baguio after the effectivity of this Act.

The Republic contended that this provision exempts Baguio City from the IPRA’s coverage and reserves the power to reclassify lands within the townsite reservation exclusively to Congress. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the NCIP’s actions were valid under the general provisions of the IPRA, which recognize the rights of indigenous peoples to their ancestral lands.

The Supreme Court sided with the Republic, emphasizing the clear and unambiguous language of Section 78. The Court outlined the section’s key mandates:

1. Baguio City is not subject to the general provisions of the IPRA but remains governed by its charter.
2. Lands proclaimed as part of Baguio City’s Townsite Reservation retain that status.
3. Reclassification of properties within the Townsite Reservation requires an act of Congress.
4. Prior land rights and titles recognized before the IPRA’s effectivity remain valid.
5. Territories incorporated into Baguio City after the IPRA’s effectivity are exempted from this special provision.

Building on this, the Court underscored that the NCIP lacks the power to reclassify lands previously included in the Baguio City Townsite Reservation before the IPRA’s enactment. Such power is reserved solely for Congress, exercised through a new law. This prohibition is reiterated in Rule XIII, Section 1 of the IPRA’s Implementing Rules, which states that lands within the Baguio Townsite Reservation shall not be reclassified except through appropriate legislation.

The Court also delved into the legislative history of the IPRA, noting that Congressional deliberations on both the House and Senate bills demonstrated a clear intent to exempt Baguio City’s land areas, particularly the Baguio City Townsite Reservation, from the IPRA’s coverage. The Supreme Court emphasized that the NCIP cannot disregard this clear legislative intent.

The IPRA does not generally authorize the NCIP to issue ancestral land titles within Baguio City, however, the Court recognized exceptions under Section 78 for (1) prior land rights and titles recognized before the IPRA’s effectivity and (2) territories incorporated into Baguio after the IPRA’s effectivity. For prior land rights, the appropriate remedy for indigenous cultural communities is Act No. 926. This Act outlines the process for native settlers to obtain patents for unreserved, unappropriated agricultural public land that they have continuously occupied and cultivated since August 1, 1890.

The Court also referenced the earlier case of Republic v. Fañgonil, 218 Phil. 484 (1984), which involved claims within the Baguio Townsite Reservation. In that case, the Court held that claimants who had not previously registered their lands during the initial registration proceedings in 1915 were barred from doing so later. The Fañgonil ruling reinforced the principle that lands within the Baguio Townsite Reservation, once declared public domain, are not registerable under Act No. 496, except for those claims that were properly presented and adjudicated during the original land registration case. Given these precedents, the Supreme Court found that the CALTs issued by the NCIP to the respondents were invalid.

In summary, the Court declared that:

private respondents’ rights over the subject properties located in the Townsite Reservation in Baguio City were never recognized in any administrative or judicial proceedings prior to the effectivity of the IPRA law. The CALTs and CADTs issued by the NCIP to respondents are thus void.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the NCIP had the authority to issue CALTs for lands within Baguio City’s townsite reservation, given the special provision in Section 78 of the IPRA.
What is Section 78 of the IPRA?	Section 78 is a special provision that states Baguio City shall remain governed by its charter, and lands within its townsite reservation shall remain as such unless reclassified by Congress.
Can the NCIP reclassify lands within Baguio’s townsite reservation?	No, the NCIP does not have the authority to reclassify lands within Baguio City’s townsite reservation; this power is reserved for Congress.
What happens to prior land rights recognized before the IPRA?	Prior land rights and titles recognized and acquired through judicial, administrative, or other processes before the IPRA’s effectivity remain valid.
What law governs land rights within Baguio City?	The Charter of Baguio City governs the determination of land rights within Baguio City, not the general provisions of the IPRA.
Did the respondents in this case have their land rights recognized before the IPRA?	No, the respondents’ rights over the properties in question were never recognized in any administrative or judicial proceedings before the IPRA’s effectivity.
What was the basis for the NCIP’s decision to issue the CALTs?	The NCIP based its decision on the premise that the respondents had vested rights over their ancestral lands based on native title, as mandated by the Constitution and the IPRA.
What was the Court’s ruling in this case?	The Court ruled that the NCIP lacked the authority to issue the CALTs and declared them null and void, reversing the Court of Appeals’ decision.

This ruling clarifies the scope of the NCIP’s authority and reinforces the principle that special laws, such as Baguio City’s charter, take precedence over general laws like the IPRA. The decision protects the integrity of the Baguio Townsite Reservation and reaffirms that only Congress can alter its status. Ultimately, this case reinforces the need for a careful balance between the rights of indigenous peoples and the existing legal framework governing land use and ownership.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Republic vs. NCIP, G.R. No. 208480, September 25, 2019