Tag: Baguio City Charter

Baguio City and IPRA: Native Title Exception and Proof of Continuous Possession

TL;DR

The Supreme Court affirmed that while Baguio City is generally exempt from the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA), this exemption does not negate the concept of native title. Indigenous peoples in Baguio City can still claim ownership of ancestral lands based on possession since time immemorial, independent of IPRA. However, claimants must prove open, continuous, and actual possession of the land up to the present. In this case, the heirs of Carantes failed to demonstrate continuous possession because the claimed lands are currently occupied by entities like Camp John Hay and Baguio Country Club. Thus, their claim for Certificates of Ancestral Land Titles under IPRA was denied, emphasizing that native title claims in Baguio City must be pursued through regular land titling processes, proving uninterrupted possession.

Time Immemorial vs. Modern Development: Balancing Indigenous Rights in Baguio City

This case, Republic of the Philippines v. National Commission on Indigenous Peoples, revolves around the complex interplay between indigenous land rights and urban development in Baguio City. The central legal question is whether the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) fully applies to Baguio City, and if not, how indigenous communities can assert their ancestral land rights within the city’s unique legal framework. The heirs of Lauro Carantes sought to claim ancestral land titles within Baguio City under IPRA, a claim contested by the Republic of the Philippines. The Supreme Court’s resolution clarifies the extent of IPRA’s application in Baguio City and the enduring significance of native title, particularly the necessity of proving continuous, present-day possession for such claims to succeed.

At the heart of the matter is Section 78 of IPRA, which states that “[c]ity and municipalities within the Metropolitan Manila Area, and all chartered cities including Baguio City…shall be governed by the pertinent provisions of their respective charters or special laws.” The Supreme Court interpreted this provision in its July 11, 2023 Decision to mean that Baguio City is generally exempted from IPRA’s coverage. However, the Court crucially clarified that this exemption is not absolute. It explicitly stated that the exemption does not extend to native title claims. This means that while Baguio City’s land administration is primarily governed by its charter, the fundamental right of indigenous peoples to claim ownership based on native title – ownership since time immemorial – remains recognized and protected, albeit outside the specific framework of IPRA’s ancestral domain provisions.

The concept of native title is a critical exception to the Regalian Doctrine, which posits that all lands of the public domain belong to the State. As the Supreme Court reiterated, citing Federation of Coron, Busuanga, Palawan Farmer’s Association, Inc. v. Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, native title refers to “ownership of land by Filipinos by virtue of a claim of ownership since time immemorial and independent of any grant from the Spanish Crown.” This principle, rooted in the landmark case of Cariño v. Insular Government, presumes private ownership from time immemorial when land has been held by individuals under a claim of private ownership as far back as memory or testimony goes. The IPRA itself defines native title as “pre-conquest rights to lands and domains…which…have been held under a claim of private ownership by [indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples], have never been public lands[,] and are thus indisputably presumed to have been held that way since before the Spanish Conquest.”

In denying the Motions for Reconsideration, the Supreme Court emphasized a crucial element for native title claims: present, continuous possession. While the heirs of Carantes argued for their ancestral ties, the Court highlighted the factual finding that the claimed land is currently occupied by entities like Camp John Hay, Baguio Country Club, and Baguio Water District. This present-day occupation by others undermined the claim of continuous possession from time immemorial to the present, a requirement the Court explicitly underscored. The Court stated, “Moreover, it is important to note that what is needed for a claim of native title to prevail is proof that the indigenous peoples are in open, continuous, and actual possession of the land up to the present.” This insistence on present possession is pivotal. It means that establishing ancestral roots alone is insufficient; claimants must demonstrate unbroken occupation to validate a native title claim, particularly when seeking recognition outside the IPRA framework in Baguio City.

The practical implication of this ruling is significant for indigenous communities in Baguio City. While IPRA’s specific ancestral domain processes may not directly apply due to Section 78, the door to native title claims remains open. However, the burden of proof is substantial. Claimants must navigate the regular land titling process and rigorously demonstrate uninterrupted, actual possession of the land from time immemorial to the present day. This ruling underscores the delicate balance between recognizing indigenous rights and acknowledging existing property rights and urban development in chartered cities like Baguio. It clarifies that native title is a valid legal concept in Baguio City but necessitates a stringent demonstration of continuous possession, reflecting the unique context of urbanized ancestral lands.

FAQs

What is the main legal issue in this case?	The main issue is whether Baguio City’s exemption from IPRA affects the ability of indigenous peoples in Baguio City to claim native title to ancestral lands.
What did the Supreme Court decide regarding IPRA and Baguio City?	The Supreme Court decided that Baguio City is generally exempt from IPRA, except for native title claims, which are still recognized.
What is ‘native title’ in the context of this case?	Native title refers to pre-conquest rights to land based on continuous possession and ownership by indigenous peoples since time immemorial, independent of Spanish or state grants.
What is the key requirement to prove native title in Baguio City?	The key requirement is to prove open, continuous, and actual possession of the land from time immemorial up to the present.
Why did the heirs of Carantes lose their claim?	The heirs of Carantes lost because they failed to prove continuous, present-day possession of the claimed land, as it is currently occupied by other entities.
Can indigenous peoples in Baguio City still claim ancestral lands?	Yes, they can still claim ancestral lands based on native title, but they must prove continuous possession through the regular land titling process, not directly under IPRA.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.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 of the Philippines v. National Commission on Indigenous Peoples, G.R No. 209449, July 30, 2024

July 30, 2024

Baguio City and IPRA: Supreme Court Clarifies Limits on Ancestral Land Titles in Townsite Reservations

TL;DR

The Supreme Court ruled that Baguio City is exempt from the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) concerning ancestral land titles due to Section 78 of IPRA, which respects Baguio City’s Charter and townsite reservation status. This means that the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) cannot issue ancestral land titles within Baguio City under IPRA. However, the ruling in Cariño v. Insular Government, which recognizes land ownership based on possession since time immemorial, still applies. In this specific case, the Carantes heirs’ claim for ancestral land titles in Baguio City was denied because they failed to prove continuous possession since time immemorial, and the land was within a forest reservation.

Upholding Townsite Reservations: Baguio City’s Unique Status Under IPRA

This case, Republic of the Philippines v. National Commission on Indigenous Peoples, revolves around the complex interplay between indigenous land rights and established townsite reservations, specifically in Baguio City. At its core, the Supreme Court grappled with whether the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997, a landmark law designed to protect the ancestral domains of indigenous communities, applies to Baguio City, given the city’s unique historical and legal context. The heirs of Lauro Carantes, claiming ancestral rights as Ibaloi indigenous people, sought Certificates of Ancestral Land Titles (CALTs) for parcels of land within Baguio City. This claim was initially granted by the NCIP, but the Republic challenged this decision, arguing that Baguio City is exempt from IPRA’s coverage due to Section 78 of the Act and the pre-existing Baguio Townsite Reservation.

The legal framework at the heart of this dispute includes the IPRA, particularly Section 78, which 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 argued that this section explicitly exempts Baguio City from IPRA’s ancestral domain provisions, emphasizing the Baguio Townsite Reservation established in 1907 and the General Land Registration Office (GLRO) Record No. 211, which declared most lands within the reservation as public lands unless claimed and adjudicated as private property within a specific period. The Court of Appeals, however, sided with the NCIP and the Carantes heirs, citing previous jurisprudence that suggested Section 78 merely acknowledges prior land rights without exempting Baguio City from IPRA altogether.

The Supreme Court, in reversing the Court of Appeals, firmly declared that Section 78 of IPRA indeed exempts Baguio City from the law’s coverage regarding ancestral land titles. The Court emphasized the explicit language of Section 78, underscoring that Baguio City remains governed by its Charter and its townsite reservation status persists until legislative reclassification. This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent behind IPRA, as evidenced by congressional deliberations indicating a desire to maintain Baguio City’s distinct land administration framework. The Court reiterated its stance from Republic v. National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (2019), which definitively stated that NCIP lacks the authority to issue ancestral titles within Baguio Townsite Reservation unless Congress reclassifies the land.

However, the Supreme Court clarified that while IPRA’s ancestral domain provisions do not apply in Baguio City, this does not negate all forms of indigenous land ownership recognition. The Court explicitly invoked the landmark case of Cariño v. Insular Government (1909), a cornerstone of Philippine jurisprudence concerning native title. Cariño established the principle that land occupied and possessed by Filipinos since time immemorial is presumed to be private land, never to have been public land. This doctrine operates independently of IPRA and remains applicable nationwide, including Baguio City. Therefore, indigenous claimants in Baguio City, like the Carantes heirs, are not entirely without recourse. They can still pursue land ownership claims based on the Cariño doctrine by demonstrating continuous occupation and possession of the land since time immemorial.

In the Carantes case, despite acknowledging the applicability of Cariño, the Supreme Court ultimately denied their claim. The Court found that the Carantes heirs failed to sufficiently prove actual, continuous possession of the claimed land since time immemorial. Evidence indicated that the land was within the Forbes Forest Reservation and occupied by entities like Camp John Hay and Baguio Country Club, predating IPRA. Thus, while the door to asserting native title under Cariño remains open even in Baguio City, the burden of proof to establish immemorial possession is substantial and was not met in this instance. The decision underscores a balanced approach: IPRA’s specific ancestral domain mechanisms are inapplicable in Baguio City due to its unique legal history, but the fundamental right to claim ownership based on time immemorial possession, as recognized in Cariño, persists as a vital legal avenue for indigenous communities even within the city’s reservations.

FAQs

What is the main legal principle established in this case?	The Supreme Court clarified that Baguio City is exempt from the ancestral domain provisions of the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) due to Section 78 of the law, which respects Baguio City’s Charter and townsite reservation status.
Does this mean indigenous people in Baguio City have no land rights?	No, it does not. While IPRA’s ancestral domain title provisions are not applicable, the doctrine of Cariño v. Insular Government still applies, allowing indigenous people to claim ownership based on possession since time immemorial.
Why is Baguio City treated differently under IPRA?	Section 78 of IPRA specifically provides a special provision for Baguio City, recognizing its existing Charter and townsite reservation established long before IPRA was enacted. This provision reflects a legislative intent to maintain Baguio City’s unique land administration framework.
What did the Carantes heirs fail to prove in their case?	The Carantes heirs failed to prove that they and their ancestors had been in continuous occupation and possession of the claimed land in Baguio City since time immemorial, a requirement to establish ownership under the Cariño doctrine.
What is the practical implication of this ruling?	The NCIP cannot issue Certificates of Ancestral Land Titles under IPRA for lands within Baguio City’s townsite reservation. Indigenous claimants in Baguio City must pursue land claims through other legal avenues, primarily by proving ownership based on the Cariño doctrine.
Can ancestral lands in Baguio City ever be recognized?	Yes, ancestral lands in Baguio City can still be recognized, but not through IPRA’s ancestral domain mechanisms. Recognition can be achieved by proving ownership based on possession since time immemorial under the Cariño doctrine, or if Congress reclassifies the townsite reservation through legislation.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

July 11, 2023