Regalian Doctrine and Ipra Law

JURA REGALIA (Rights which belong to the Crown) The Jura Regalia/Regalian Doctine during the Spanish Regime According to Philippine History, the Islands of the Philippines were discovered and conquered by the Spaniards in 1521. Among the doctrines introduced by the Spanish conquerors, aside from Christianity, is the medieval concept of Regalian Doctrine/Jura Regalia. This is a doctrine of Western Concept wherein the Spanish king is regarded as the owner of all Spanish territories and colonies, including things that are in them. Thus, by virtue of discovery and conquest of the Philippine Islands, the King of Spain acquired exclusive dominion over the Islands. The doctrine was first manifested in the provision of Law 14, Title 12, Book 4 of the Recopilacion de Leyes de Las Indias which states that: “We having acquired full sovereignty over the Indies, and all lands territories, and possession not heretofore ceded away by our royal predecessors, or by, or in our name, still pertaining to the royal crown and patrimony, it is our will that all lands which are held without proper and true deeds of grants be restored to us according as they belong to us, in order that after reserving before all what to us or to our viceroys, audiencias, and governors may seem necessary for public squares, ways, pastures, and commons in those places which are peopled, taking into consideration not only their present condition, but also the future and their probable increase, and after distributing to the natives what may be necessary for tillage and pasturage, confirming them in what they now have and giving them more if necessary, all the rest of said lands may remain free and unencumbered for us to dispose of as we may wish”. From said provision it is clear that anyone who wants to claim ownership of a land must show a title or grant from the Crown. Absence of such would mean that what is being claimed is owned by the Crown and it is only through the will of the Crown that such land could be disposed either by way of grant or sale. And lands and resources not granted by the Crown remain part of the public domain over which none but the sovereign holds rights. The Regalian Doctrine in our Present System of Government Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution provides: “All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or time, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State…”. The above provision of the Constitution is the Philippine concept of Jura Regalia. When it was embraced in the system of our Government, the doctrine has been divested of its royal quality- as ownership of the lands is now vested in the State and not to the head of State. When enshrined in our past and present constitution the ownership of lands by the State comes in the concept of dominium which is the State’s capacity to own or acquire property. The Philippine concept of Jura Regalia is unlike the Jura Regalia during the Spanish regime for all lands of public domain belong to the State and not to the head of the State. The presumption is that lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership belong to the State. Accordingly, public lands not shown to have been reclassified or released as alienable agricultural land, or alienated to a private person by the State, remain part of the inalienable public domain. However, even if the State’s power of ownership over public domain includes the power to exploit, develop and alienate the natural resources, this does not mean that such power is absolute for it has limitations. The limitations are provided for by the Constitution itself. If we continue reading Article XII Section 2 it provides that: “…With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. . .” Section 3, provides that: “Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and national parks. Agricultural lands of the public domain may be further classified by law according to the uses which they may be devoted. Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands . Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and not

to exceed one thousand hectares in area. Citizens of the Philippines may lease not more than five hundred hectares, xxx”. “Taking into account the requirements of conservation, xxx, the Congress shall determine, by law, the size of lands of the public domain which may be acquired, developed, held, or leased and the conditions therefor”. Hence, in relation to the Regalian Doctrine, even if the aforementioned provisions provide that while no public land can be acquired by private persons without any grant from the government, only alienable and disposable lands of the public domain may nonetheless be subject of such grant - only agricultural lands are subject to disposition; that even if the land is alienable and disposable, before such grant is issued to any grantees they must first comply with requirements prescribed by the Constitution and other Special Laws; and that the classification of lands to alienable and disposable is only through a positive act from the State. We can also say that there are lands which are exempted from the application of Jura Regalia. Among these lands are the Friar Lands. Friar lands, as defined in the book of Ed Vincent A. Albano III (Land Titles and Deeds), are lands which were acquired by the State from the Religious sects and which do not come within the scope of the term alienable and disposable lands of public domain because they are considered as private lands. In Jacinto v. Director of Lands, 49 Phil. 853 ,it was explained that these lands are considered private lands because they are considered private lands when Spain surrendered to the Americans the Islands of the Philippines and said lands when acquired by the State from the Religious sects were patrimonial property. Lands acquired through the Doctrine of Immemorial Possession are also exempted from application of Jura Regalia. History provides that the indigenous people were the original inhabitants of colonized islands. Some chose to withdraw to some remote upland to avoid association with the colonizers. As Senator Juan Flavier said during his sponsorship speech of Senate Bill No. 1728 (which eventually became the IPRA of 1997) ,the Indigenous Peoples are the heirs and offspring of the people who have first occupied, tilled and cared for the land long before any central government was established. The Doctrine of Immemorial Possession was recognized in the case of Cariño v. Insular Government, 41 Phil. 935, where the Supreme Court provided that: “when, as far back as testimony or memory goes, the land has been held by individuals under a claim of private ownership, it will be presumed to have been held in the same way from before the Spanish conquest and never have been public land’. From the foregoing pronouncement it shows that lands held by individuals since time immemorial are considered private property for such were considered as private land before the Spanish Colonizers conquered the Philippines and was considered private when Spain surrendered to Americans the Philippines and thus, it follows that these lands remain private until this time. The Cariño case became a landmark and made known to be the Native Title Doctrine. It became the basis of the Indigenous People’s Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997. IPRA recognizes the rights of the indigenous people to their lands. This guarantees the right of IP’s to their ancestral domains, self-governance and empowerment, social justice and human rights, and cultural integrity. IP’s are given the right to utilize, control develop, manage and conserve natural resources within their ancestral domain. It defines native title as referring to “pre-conquest rights to lands and domains which as far back as memory reaches, have been held under a claim of private ownership by IPs, have never been public lands and are thus indisputably presumed to have been held that way since before the Spanish Conquest.” However, IPRA’s constitutionality was challenged before the Supreme Court in the case of Cruz vs. DENR, G.R. No. 135385. December 6, 2000. On the part of those who defended the IPRA, they said that even accepting Jura Regalia, Spain could claim dominium only over unoccupied and unclaimed portions of the islands. The defenders argued that the existence of the IPs title over the lands existed prior to the arrival of the colonists. Also, IPRA Law still kept for the State control over natural resources even in ancestral domain. Justice Puno in his separate opinion said that “the IPRA recognizes the existence of ICCs/IPs as a distinct sector in the society. It grants this people the ownership and possession of their ancestral domains and ancestral lands and defines the extent of these lands and domains”.

Thus, from the foregoing discussions on IPRA, we can conclude that ancestral lands and ancestral domains of Indigenous People are also outside the bound of Jura Regalia. The reason is as given by the defenders of the IPRA that IPs title over their lands existed prior to the arrival of the colonizers. This is also in consonance with Article XII, Section 5 of the Constitution which states that: "the State xxx, shall protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands to ensure their economic, social, and cultural well-being. The Congress may provide for the applicability of customary laws governing property rights or relations in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domain”. In a speech given by Atty. Reynaldo Agranzamendez in a symposium held at the University of the Cordilleras, he stated that although the Carino Doctrine seems to negate the applicability of the Regalian Doctrine, the way to harmonize them with one another is that the Carino doctrine must be regarded as an exception to the Regalian Doctrine. He proposed that the lands now covered by CALTs/CADTs, or lands for which CALTs/CADTs may in the future be issued, should be subject to reacquisition, in whole or in part, by the State or local government unit through sale, lease, usufruct, donation, or expropriation. Atty. Agranzamendez further proposed the expansion of the right of redemption by giving the State the right to redeem the land sold to a non-IP where the seller fails to exercise his right of redemption. From all the foregoing accounts, it can be concluded that the application of Regalian theory is not absolute for there are lands which could not be under the power of the State. The theory doesn’t negate the native title to the lands held in private ownership since time immemorial as the lands have been held by individuals under a claim of private ownership held from before the Spanish conquest, hence never had been public lands. The existence of native title to land, or ownership of land by Filipinos by virtue of possession under a claim of ownership since time immemorial and independent of any grant from the Spanish crown is indeed an exception to the theory of jura regalia.

Aboslog, Pedro Baggay, Joefer Balawis, Jessica Bandiwan, Juvilyn Biwit, Allan Castillo, Christopher Clabson, Alano Degay, Johnny Dup-et, Carol Falinchao, Juan Langban, Ronald Ligwatan, Sylvette Lomioan, Galao Maguen, Michelle Joan Martinez, Cherry Rose Merino, Marcelli Orro, Michael Penrad, Alexander Pinayakan, June Pokling, Marcelo Tenedero-Gorospe, Jennifer Antoinette Tokias, Aaron Cris Tugay-an, Jeremy