In Agnes v. Republic, the Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land rights in Calauit Island. The Court set aside the Court of Appeals’ decision and dismissed the case, ruling that the issuance of a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) to the Tagbanua Indigenous Cultural Community (ICC) rendered the original dispute moot and academic. This meant the previous legal questions about settlers’ rights under Resettlement Agreements were no longer relevant, as the CADT granted the ICC ownership and control over the ancestral domain, including the right to stay in the territory.

From Settler Disputes to Ancestral Domain: Who Has the Right to Calauit Island?

The case began with settlers, the petitioners, who were relocated from Calauit Island in 1976 when it was declared a wildlife sanctuary. They had entered into Resettlement Agreements with the government, but later returned to Calauit, claiming the resettlement areas were inadequate. The Republic then sued them for specific performance of the Resettlement Agreements and recovery of possession.

Central to the legal battle were the Resettlement Agreements. The Republic argued the settlers had waived their rights to the island upon signing these agreements. The settlers countered, claiming the agreements were obtained through deceit and intimidation, and that the government had breached its obligations by providing substandard resettlement areas. The lower courts initially sided with the Republic, ordering the settlers to vacate Calauit.

However, a significant event occurred during the appeal process. In 2008, the Office of the President, through the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), issued a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) to the Tagbanua Indigenous Cultural Community (ICC), which included the communities of Calauit and Quezon. This CADT covered a large portion of land in Busuanga, Palawan, including Calauit Island. The issuance of the CADT significantly altered the legal landscape of the case.

The Supreme Court then had to determine the impact of the CADT on the existing dispute. The Court noted that the CADT granted the Tagbanua ICC the right to ownership and possession of their ancestral domain, including the right to stay in the territory and not be removed. The Court emphasized that Section 7 of Republic Act No. 8371, also known as the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA), explicitly protects these rights:

Section 7. Rights to Ancestral Domains. – The rights of ownership and possession of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains shall be recognized and protected. Such rights shall include:

1. Right to Stay in the Territories. – The right to stay in the territory and not to be removed therefrom. No ICCs/IPs will be relocated without their free and prior informed consent, nor through any means other than eminent domain.

Building on this principle, the Court reasoned that the issuance of the CADT, regardless of the validity of the Resettlement Agreements, effectively negated the purpose of those agreements, which was to remove the settlers from Calauit. As the Tagbanua ICC now had the right to stay, the question of whether the settlers could be compelled to leave under the Resettlement Agreements became moot.

The Court cited Gancho-on v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, reiterating the principle that courts should not consider questions where no actual interests are involved and where a declaration would be of no practical use or value. Therefore, the Court set aside the Court of Appeals’ decision and dismissed the case.

The Supreme Court clarified that the ruling only addressed the specific issues before it. The Court explicitly stated that the decision did not touch on the propriety or impropriety of the issuance of the CADT itself, as that question was not raised in the case. The Court also addressed the petitioners’ request for individual titles to portions of Calauit, stating that under Section 12 of Republic Act No. 8371, individual members of cultural communities must seek title in accordance with Commonwealth Act No. 141 or the Land Registration Act 496.

The decision highlights the importance of the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) in protecting the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral domains. It also illustrates the concept of a case becoming moot and academic when intervening events render the original legal questions irrelevant. This case serves as a reminder of the complex interplay between land rights, government policies, and the rights of indigenous peoples in the Philippines.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the Resettlement Agreements signed by settlers of Calauit Island were valid and enforceable, particularly in light of the subsequent issuance of a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) to the Tagbanua Indigenous Cultural Community. The court ultimately focused on the impact of the CADT.
What is a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT)?	A CADT is a title formally recognizing the rights of possession and ownership of Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) over their ancestral domains, as identified and delineated in accordance with the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA). It grants the ICC/IP the right to control, manage, and utilize the ancestral domain.
What is the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA)?	The IPRA (Republic Act No. 8371) is a Philippine law that recognizes, protects, and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs) to their ancestral domains and ancestral lands. It aims to ensure their economic, social, and cultural well-being.
What does it mean for a case to be “moot and academic”?	A case becomes moot and academic when the issues presented are no longer live or when intervening events have rendered the original legal questions irrelevant. In such cases, a court’s decision would have no practical effect.
Did the Supreme Court rule on the validity of the CADT in this case?	No, the Supreme Court explicitly stated that its decision did not address the propriety or impropriety of the issuance of the CADT. That issue was not raised in the case.
What rights does a CADT grant to the indigenous community?	A CADT grants the indigenous community the right to ownership and possession of their ancestral domain, the right to develop and manage the land and its natural resources, the right to stay in the territory, and other related rights as defined in the IPRA.
Can individual members of the Tagbanua ICC now claim individual titles to land in Calauit?	The Supreme Court clarified that if individual members of the Tagbanua ICC wish to secure individual titles to ancestral lands, they must do so in accordance with existing land registration laws, such as Commonwealth Act No. 141 or the Land Registration Act 496.
What was the effect of Presidential Proclamation No. 1578 on the ancestral domain claim?	Presidential Proclamation No. 1578 declared Calauit Island a Game Preserve and Wildlife Sanctuary. However, the CADT was issued notwithstanding the existence of this Proclamation, recognizing pre-existing private rights and the indigenous community’s claim to ancestral domain.

This case underscores the evolving legal landscape concerning indigenous rights and land ownership in the Philippines. The issuance of the CADT to the Tagbanua ICC represents a significant step towards recognizing and protecting their ancestral domain rights. The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies that the rights conferred by the CADT take precedence over prior agreements aimed at relocating the community.

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: Aurellano Agnes, et al. vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 156022, July 6, 2015