Native Title vs. Statutory Rights: Land Ownership in Baguio City After the IPRA Exemption Ruling

The Supreme Court has settled a significant question on land ownership in Baguio City: the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act (IPRA) does not cover the city, except for claims of native title. In Republic of the Philippines v. National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (G.R. No. 209449, July 30, 2024), the Court denied with finality the motions for reconsideration of its earlier ruling, affirming that Certificates of Ancestral Land Titles (CALTs) cannot be issued to claimants who fail to prove actual, continuous possession of the land since time immemorial.

The ruling clarifies the boundary between statutory rights under IPRA and the ancient doctrine of native title, providing crucial guidance for property claimants in Baguio City and beyond.

The Dispute: A Claim Over Baguio City Lands

The case began when the heirs of Lauro Carantes filed a petition for the recognition and delineation of an ancestral land claim over properties in Baguio City. They sought the issuance of CALTs under the IPRA, asserting that their family had occupied the land since time immemorial.

The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) and the Court of Appeals initially ruled in favor of the heirs. However, the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, challenged these rulings before the Supreme Court.

The Issue: Does IPRA Apply in Baguio City?

The central question was whether Baguio City falls within the coverage of the IPRA, and if so, whether the heirs of Carantes could validly claim ancestral land titles over the disputed properties.

The Supreme Court ruled that Baguio City is exempted from the coverage of the IPRA, citing Section 78 of the law, which provides that Baguio City is governed by its own charter. Consequently, the claim of the heirs of Carantes over properties within Baguio City may not be recognized under the IPRA.

The Exception: Native Title Under the Cariño Doctrine

Despite the exemption, the Court emphasized an important exception. The IPRA does not overturn the doctrine established in Cariño v. Insular Government (41 Phil. 935 [1909]), which recognizes the ownership of land occupied and possessed since time immemorial.

The Court clarified that native title refers 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 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."

This concept of native title is a recognized exception to the Regalian Doctrine, which holds that all lands of the public domain belong to the State. Under native title, ownership arises from time immemorial possession, independent of any grant from the Spanish Crown.

The Ruling: Failure to Prove Actual Possession

The Court denied the heirs' claim because they failed to prove the essential element of open, continuous, and actual possession of the land up to the present.

The Court noted that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources had discovered that the land claimed had not been traditionally occupied by the heirs of Carantes and their ancestors. In fact, the land had been occupied by other individuals with vested property rights, including Camp John Hay, the Baguio Country Club, and the Baguio Water District. The land had also been declared and recognized as a forest park reservation.

Unlike the claimants in Cariño, the heirs of Carantes failed to show that they had been possessing and occupying the land since time immemorial. Therefore, there was no presumption that the land was private, and no ownership could be recognized in their favor.

Practical Takeaways

• Baguio City is generally exempt from the IPRA, but this does not extinguish native title claims based on time immemorial possession.
• Native title requires proof of open, continuous, and actual possession of the land up to the present. A mere claim of ancestral rights, without evidence of continued occupation, is insufficient.
• The source of a native title right is a vested property right, not the IPRA. Therefore, claimants should pursue registration through the usual land titling process rather than through the NCIP's CALT procedure.
• The Regalian Doctrine remains the default rule: all lands not clearly under private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Claimants must overcome this presumption with substantial evidence.
• Occupancy by third parties with vested rights — such as government reservations or private entities — can defeat a native title claim if the claimant cannot show continuous possession.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.