This template may serve as a guide for cases where the main issue involves the application for exclusion/exemption of a landholding for being an ancestral domain/land of indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs).

II. CHECKLIST OF DOCUMENTARY REQUIREMENTS

[] Certification from the NCIP that the applicant is a duly identified member of the ICC/IP claiming the subject landholding as its ancestral land or domain and that the applicant had been duly authorized by the ICC/IP concerned in accordance with the customary laws of the same;

[] Certified True Copy of any of the following:

[] Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) issued by the NCIP;

[] Certificate of Ancestral Land Title (CALT) issued by the NCIP;

[] Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claim (CADC) issued by the DENR;

[] Certificate of Ancestral Land Claim (CALC) issued by the DENR;

[] Certificate that there is a pending application for the issuance of a CALC or CADT;

III. JURISDICTION

A. Under Section 5 of the Joint DAR-DENR-LRA-NCIP Administrative Order No. 01-12, DAR has the following jurisdiction:

"Pursuant to Section 4 of Republic Act 6657 as clarified in Joint DAR-DENR MC No. 9, Series of 1995, and Joint DAR-DENR MC Nos. 14 and 19, Series of 1997, the following lands are under the jurisdiction of DAR:

a. All alienable and disposable lands of the public domain devoted to or suitable to agriculture which were:

1. proclaimed by the President as DAR resettlement projects and placed under the administration of DAR for distribution to qualified beneficiaries under CARP;

2. placed by law under the jurisdiction of DAR; and

3. previously proclaimed for the use of Government departments, agencies and instrumentalities and subsequently turned over to DAR pursuant to E.O. 407 Series of 1990, as amended by E.O. 448 and 506 Series of 1992.

b. All lands of the public domain in excess of the specific area limits as determined by Congress in the preceding paragraph;

c. All other lands owned by the Government devoted to or suitable for agriculture; and

d. All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of the agricultural products raised or that can be raised thereon.

For purposes of simplifying the above categories, these landholdings can still be sub-classified as follows: a) titled properties; b) resettlement areas and reservations; and c) untitled private agricultural lands.

a. Titled Properties

These shall include all agricultural landholdings covered with certificates of title and registered under the Land Registration Act (Act 496) or under the Property Registration Decree (PD No. 1529) or those landholdings administratively titled before 1987 under the Public Land Act (CA No. 141), as amended, and which are in excess of the retention limit.

b. Resettlement Areas and Reservations

These shall include all public lands, i.e., resettlement areas and reservations, which have been proclaimed (by way of Presidential Proclamations) for DAR, other government agencies, and for government financial institutions and were subsequently turned-over to DAR for coverage under CARP pursuant to Executive Order No. 407, Series of 1990, as amended by Executive Order No. 448, Series of 1991.

c. Untitled Private Agricultural Lands

These shall include all surveyed landholdings covered by an approved survey plan which meet the criteria for untitled private agricultural lands under Joint DENR-DAR MC No. 2003-1, as follows:

1. Continuous occupancy and cultivation by oneself or thru predecessor-in-interest for at least thirty (30) years prior to the effectivity of the Free Patent Law Extension (R.A. No. 9176) on December 4, 2002;

2. The land must have been classified as A and D for at least thirty (30) years prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. 9176;

3. One must have paid the real estate taxes thereon; and

4. There is no adverse claim on the land.

Provided, however, that the DAR shall not cover under CARP the following types of landholdings located within the ADs/ALs claims:

a. Privately claimed agricultural lands which are unsurveyed or not covered by any survey plan approved by DENR;

b. Privately claimed agricultural lots, which although surveyed, were classified as alienable and disposable by the DENR after December 4, 1972; and

c. Privately claimed lands within the unclassified public lands or within areas classified as timberland/forest land."

B. If the DAR deems it proper to take jurisdiction over the case, the following DAR Administrative Orders (A.O.s) issuances for application of exclusion/exemption shall be applied on the ground that the subject land is an ancestral domain/land:

• A.O. No. 7, Series of 2011 (Date of Effectivity — October 15, 2011)

Within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from his/her/its/their receipt of the NOC, the LO may file a Manifestation for Exemption or Exclusion from CARP coverage before the PARO;

Failure to file a Manifestation for Exemption or Exclusion from CARP coverage within the abovementioned reglementary period shall be construed as a waiver on the part of the landowner of the right to file a petition for exemption or exclusion from CARP coverage. All manifestations/petitions made after this period shall no longer be accepted.

The Application/Petition for Exemption or Exclusion from CARP coverage may be filed together with the above-mentioned Manifestation. If it is not filed jointly, the LO can file it, together with the documents required by the rules on exemption or exclusion, within sixty (60) days from receipt of the NOC. Non-submission thereof within this reglementary period shall be construed as a waiver or abandonment of his/her/its right to file said Petition for Exemption or Exclusion from CARP coverage with respect to the landholding covered.

• A.O. No. 3, Series of 2003 (Date of Effectivity — February 8, 2003)

Section 7. The Regional Director shall exercise primary jurisdiction over all agrarian law implementation cases.

• A.O. No. 10, Series of 1994 (Date of Effectivity — September 30, 1994)

Regional Director has primary jurisdiction to approve or disapprove application for exemption for all land sizes

• A.O. No. 13 Series of 1990 (Issued August 30, 1990, Effectivity Date 10 days after publication)

Regional Director has primary jurisdiction to approve or disapprove application for exemption from CARP coverage for lands five (5) hectares and below.

For lands exceeding five (5) hectares, the Undersecretary for Legal Affairs shall have jurisdiction to approve or disapprove the application.

For lands exceeding fifty (50) hectares, the Secretary.

C. The DAR may, however, refuse to take jurisdiction over the case on the following grounds:

Jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving rights of indigenous cultural communities or indigenous peoples belongs to the NCIP pursuant to Section 66 of R.A. No. 8371, which reads, as follows:

Section 66. Jurisdiction of the NCIP. — The NCIP, through its regional offices, shall have jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs. Provided, however, That no such dispute shall be brought to the NCIP unless the parties have exhausted all remedies provided under their customary laws. For this purpose, a certification shall be issued by the council of Elders/Leaders who participated in the attempt to settle the dispute that the same has not been resolved, which certification shall be a condition precedent to the filling of a petition with the NCIP.

D. The DAR shall, in proper cases, turnover areas within ancestral domains to the NCIP for purposes of identification and delineation of ancestral domains, pursuant to Section 52(i) of R.A. No. 8371, which reads, as follows:

i. Turnover of Areas Within Ancestral Domains Managed by Other Government Agencies — The Chairperson of the NCIP shall certify that the area covered is an ancestral domain. The secretaries of the Department of Agrarian Reform, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Department of the Interior and Local Government, and Department of Justice, the Commissioner of the National Development Corporation, and any other government agency claiming jurisdiction over the area shall be notified thereof. Such notification shall terminate any legal basis for the jurisdiction previously claimed;

E. Pursuant to Section 9 of R.A. No. 6657, as amended, the PARC has the power to suspend the implementation of R.A. No. 6657 with respect to ancestral lands for the purpose of identifying and delineating such lands by the NCIP.

IV. STANDING

The application for exemption/exclusion must be filed by:

1. A member of an ICC/IP; and

2. Such ICC/IP has a valid claim/has been awarded a CADT, CALT, CADC, or CALC over the land being covered by DAR.

3. NCIP.

V. TIMELINESS

In other instances, no prescription period is provided for the application of exemption on the ground that the land is an ancestral domain/land.

VI. DETERMINATION OF THE APPROPRIATE ACTION

1. Petition should be dismissed:

A. If the claim is not supported by any evidence;

B. If applicant is not a member of an ICC/IP;

C. The applicant is not duly authorized to file the application for exemption in accordance with the customary law of the ICC/IP;

D. The subject landholding is not covered by any CADT, CALT, CADC, or CALC;

E. NCIP certification that there is no valid claim as ancestral domain/land over the subject landholding;

F. If there is a pending decision on reversion case; and

G. If there is an existing title prior to enactment of IPRA law.

2. If DAR deems it proper to take jurisdiction over the case:

A. Evaluate the evidence to verify the claim that the land being covered under or already covered under the CARP, or sought to be excluded from the coverage of the CARP is ancestral land or domain:

i. Ascertain whether or not a CADT, CALT, CADC, or CALC had already been issued in favor of the party opposing or seeking the cancellation of the coverage or to any other person.

ii. If there is an existing CADT, CALT, CADC, or CALC, verify genuineness and authenticity of the same from the NCIP and the Register of Deeds.

iii. If determined to be genuine and authentic, proceed with the case.

• In proceeding with the exclusion case, the DAR shall ascertain whether or not the party is a member of the ICC/IP claiming land as ancestral domain or land. If the ICC/IP concerned is in the actual, continuous and open possession and occupation of the community and its members, grant the petition for exclusion.

• If not, consult and coordinate with the DENR/NCIP/LRA for other possible steps/actions to take in ascertaining whether or not to dismiss the petition.

• The petition for exclusion should be DISMISSED if the DAR, in the course of its investigation arrives at a definitive finding:

º that the subject land is NOT claimed as ancestral land or an ancestral domain; or

º that the subject land is NOT in the actual, continuous and open possession and occupation of the community and its members.

• If it cannot be ascertained yet whether the subject land is an ancestral land/domain and/or it is in the actual, continuous and open possession and occupation of the community and its members, the DAR, or the PARC, may, upon motion, ISSUE a CEASE AND DESIST ORDER or a SUSPENSION ORDER, directing the parties to the case/stakeholders to maintain the status quo pending the determination of the main issue in the case when the facts and circumstances of the case show that a party may suffer from grave and irreparable injury. This is in line with Section 9 of R.A. No. 6657, as amended, which states that "the PARC may suspend the implementation of CARP with respect to ancestral lands for the purpose of identifying and delineating such lands."

• If the DAR decides to dismiss the petition on the basis that the issues cannot as yet be definitely ascertained, dismissal should be without prejudice to refiling or the proceeding should only be suspended or archived temporarily.

B. There is a pending case before the DENR-NCIP for issuance of a CADT, CALT, CADC, or CALC, in which case:

i. The coverage of the land under CARP may be suspended by the PARC or the DAR Secretary in accordance with Section 9 of R.A. No. 6657, as amended; or

ii. The DAR, after consulting or communicating with the other concerned government agencies, may issue a status quo ante order pending joint study of the facts and investigation of the circumstances in the area concerned, in accordance with Joint DAR-DENR-LRA-NCIP Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2012 and pertinent rules on the matter.

VII. CONTENTIOUS AREAS/ISSUES AND MECHANISMS TO PREVENT AND RESOLVE THE SAME AT THE NATIONAL AND FIELD LEVELS

1. CONTENTIOUS AREAS/ISSUES — those areas/issues which are the subject of operational issues and conflicting claims between and amongst the DAR, DENR and NCIP, to wit:

a. Untitled lands being claimed by the ICCs/IPs to be part of their AD/AL which are covered by approved survey plans and also being claimed by DAR and/or DENR.

b. Titled lands with registered CLOAs, EPs and Patents within CADT/CALT/CADC/CALC.

c. Resource access/development instruments issued by the DENR over lands within Ancestral Land/Domain Claims such as, but not limited to, Community Based Forest Management Agreement (CBFMA), Integrated Forest Management Agreement (IFMA), Socialized Forest Management Agreement (SIFMA), Protected Area Community-Based Resources Management Agreement (PACBRMA), Forest Land Grazing Management Agreement (FLGMA), Co-Management Agreement, Certificate of Stewardship Contract (CSC), Certificate of Forest Stewardship Agreement (CFSA), Wood Processing Plant Permit (WPPP), Special Land Use Permit (SLUP), Private Land Timber Permit (PLTP), Special Private Land Timber Permit (SPLTP) and Foreshore Lease Agreement/Permit (FLA/FLP).

d. Exploration Permit, Financial or Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA); Mineral Agreement (either Production Sharing, Co-Production or Joint Venture) issued within CARP covered areas.

e. Reservations, proclamations and other special law-declared areas a portion or the entirety of which is subsequently issued a CADT/CALT.

f. Areas with existing and/or vested rights after the registration of the CADTs/CALTs but for any reason not segregated/excluded.

g. Other jurisdictional and operational issues that may arise between and amongst DAR, DENR and NCIP as may be determined by the National/Regional/Provincial Joint Committees, as created under Section 19 hereof.

Contested areas/issues contemplate, likewise, formal complaints filed by concerned ICCs/IPs or by the NCIP in behalf of the ICCs/IPs over those identified titled areas found within the AD/AL.

Reference: Section 12 of Joint DAR-DENR-LRA-NCIP Administrative Order No. 01-12

2. MECHANISMS TO PREVENT AND RESOLVE CONTENTIOUS AREAS/ISSUES AT THE NATIONAL AND FIELD LEVELS

A. Projection of Survey Plans. — The need for improving standards and processing of survey plans among agencies is recognized as a critical step to minimize occurrence of overlaps. As such, all survey plans processed by NCIP, DAR and DENR shall be in accordance with the Manual of Land Surveys in the Philippines.

• Prior to the approval by the NCIP of the CADT/CALT application, the NCIP shall furnish DAR (Regional Office which in turn will endorse to the Provincial Office for the issuance of the necessary certification or recommendation), DENR and LRA a copy of the original survey plan for projection and verification in order to determine if the AD/AL survey overlaps with titled properties and other approved surveys on file.

º In the absence of a technical problem, the DENR, DAR and LRA have thirty (30) days from receipt of the AD/AL survey plan within which to return the same to NCIP, together with the required certification or their findings and recommendations, as the case may be.

º Should there be overlapping of titled properties or approved survey plans within the AD/AL as determined by the LRA, DENR and DAR, an endorsement or certification to that effect shall be issued by the LRA (Central Office), DENR (Regional LMS) and DAR (Province/s which shall copy furnish the Regional Office and the Assistant Secretary for Operations) stating therein the specific details, such as, the approved survey number and/or title number of the titled properties overlapped by the AD/AL survey. Approved survey plans as used in this Joint Administrative Order refers to approved surveys prior to October 29, 1997. Thereafter, the said survey plan together with endorsements or certifications shall be returned to the NCIP for segregation/exclusion of such titled properties or approved survey plans from the survey plan and the technical description of the AD/AL. For this purpose, it shall be the primary duty and responsibility of the NCIP to secure all necessary data to be used as reference in the segregation/exclusion process. It is equally the responsibility of DAR and DENR to furnish the NCIP the survey data pertinent to the application on process, free of charge.

º The original AD/AL survey plan, as amended, shall then be submitted to the LRA, DENR and DAR anew for final projection. The LRA, DENR and DAR have fifteen (15) days from receipt of the AD/AL amended survey plan within which to return the same to NCIP and to issue the certification of non-overlap with titled properties and over those lands which have proofs of prior vested rights subject to extension if meritorious circumstances warrant.

• In case there is overlap with any proclamation, reservation or any other similar issuances, the endorsement herein above-mentioned shall likewise contain such findings to enable the NCIP to comply with the provisions of Paragraph 13 of Joint LRA-NCIP Memorandum Circular No. 1, series of 2007 which states:

"Section 13. Where the Ancestral Domain or Ancestral Land is overlapped by any proclamation or reservation, the area covered by the said proclamation shall be so indicated in the survey plan.

The certification to be issued by the NCIP showing that it has complied with Sec. 52 (i) of R.A. No. 8371 and the Resolution of the Commission approving the CADT/CALT shall form part of the documents to be submitted to LRA as basis for the issuance of the appropriate authority to register."

• Conversely, DAR and DENR shall, before processing or further processing applications for land titles pursuant to their respective mandates involving conflict areas (i.e., identified by the agencies concerned with pending/overlapping jurisdictional/operational issues or conflicting claims which are contentious or potentially contentious), must notify NCIP of the specific area to be titled and the latter shall certify, subject to the provisions of this section on projection of survey plans and issuance of certification of non-overlap, whether the same affects an AD or AL. To facilitate the identification of contentious or potentially contentious areas, the concerned agency/ies shall submit to the Joint National Committee an initial list with pertinent documents of said conflict or overlapping areas within fifteen (15) days from the creation of the Joint National Committee.

• To avoid operational gaps, the agencies concerned shall ensure coordination during the survey activity at the field level.

Reference: Section 13 of Joint DAR-DENR-LRA-NCIP Administrative Order No. 01-12

B. Exclusion/Segregation of Lands Covered by Judicially Decreed Titles and Titles Administratively Issued by DENR and DAR. — In the delineation and titling of ADs/ALs, the NCIP must exclude or segregate all lands covered by titles. For this purpose, the registered owner of the land may opt to submit to the NCIP a copy of the title of the property to facilitate segregation or exclusion pursuant to existing guidelines and other pertinent issuances.

• The ICCs/IPs, however, are not precluded from questioning the validity of these titles in a proper forum as hereunder enumerated:

1. DAR Secretary for registered EPs or CLOAs; and

2. Regional Trial Court for registered patents/judicially-decreed titles.

• On the other hand, the DAR and DENR shall not process titles pursuant to their mandate on lands certified by NCIP as ancestral domain or ancestral lands except in areas with prior and vested rights. Provided, however that the certification by NCIP on lands as Ancestral Domains or Ancestral Lands pursuant to Section 52 (i) of IPRA presupposes that the provision of Section 13 hereof on the projection of survey plans and issuance of Certification of Non-Overlap have already been complied with.

Reference: Section 14 of Joint DAR-DENR-LRA-NCIP Administrative Order No. 01-12

C. Exclusion/Segregation of Portions of Resettlement Areas and Reservations. — Pursuant to Executive Order No. 407, Series of 1990, as amended by Executive Order No. 448, Series of 1991, resettlement areas and reservations proclaimed for DAR or for other government agencies but have been turned-over to DAR for CARP coverage classified as alienable and disposable, which overlap with ADs/ALs shall be treated in accordance with Section 56 and Section 7 (g) of IPRA in relation to Section 3 (h) of the Joint DAR-DENR-LRA-NCIP Administrative Order No. 01-12 following the procedures under Section 13 thereof. However, areas classified as forests or timberlands within said proclamations and reservations should not be segregated from the AD/AL and shall not be covered under CARP.

D. CARP Coverage of Titled Properties. — Titled lands under the Torrens System issued prior to IPRA are deemed vested rights pursuant to the provision of Section 58 of IPRA. Accordingly, the DAR shall proceed with the CARP coverage of said lands unless a Restraining Order is issued by the Supreme Court without prejudice, however, to the rights of the ICCs/IPs to question the validity of these titles before a court or body of competent jurisdiction.

E. Coverage of Untitled Private Agricultural Lands. — In case of coverage of untitled lands under CARP pursuant to DAR-DENR M.C. 2003-1, involving identified contentious or potentially contentious areas as defined in this guideline, the DAR shall notify the ICCs/IPs through NCIP of such coverage and in case the ICCs/IPs register an opposition/adverse claim, such coverage will be suspended by DAR until the issue has been resolved.

F. Amendment of CADTs/CALTs. — Areas with prior existing and/or vested rights, but for any reason were not segregated upon the registration of the CADTs/CALTs. For such areas, the proper party in-interest, whether IP or non-IP, may file a petition for the amendment, modification, alteration and/or cancellation of the CADT/CALT before the NCIP Commission En Banc.

For private claimants already with vested or existing property rights within AD/AL, their claims shall be recognized and respected and they have the option to become agrarian reform beneficiaries under CARP provided they have established their vested rights pursuant to the preceding paragraph.

Reference: Section 15-18 of Joint DAR-DENR-LRA-NCIP Administrative Order No. 01-12

3. CREATION OF A JOINT NATIONAL COMMITTEE, JOINT REGIONAL/PROVINCIAL COMMITTEES AND SPECIAL TEAMS.

• Joint National Committee on DAR, DENR, LRA and NCIP Concerns

º created to address or resolve jurisdictional, operational and policy issues elevated to it that affect the implementation of the CARL, IPRA, Public Land Act, Land Registration Act/Property Registration Decree in relation to the issuance and registration of CADTs/CALTs.

º composed of the designated Undersecretaries of DAR and DENR, designated Commissioner or Executive Director of the NCIP and designated Deputy Administrator of LRA.

• Special teams and regional or provincial committees

º may be created upon order of the Joint National Committee, as may be warranted.

NOTE: These mechanisms and rules shall generally be applied by the Agencies in the resolution of policy, jurisdictional and operational issues within identified contentious and potentially-contentious areas. Administrative remedies available under existing laws shall be exhausted at the field level. Only in cases where the issues remain unresolved at the field level shall they be elevated to the Joint National Committee.

Reference: Section 19-20 of Joint DAR-DENR-LRA-NCIP Administrative Order No. 01-12

VIII. APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES, LAWS, RULES, AND POLICIES

1. Statutes

A. Section 9, Republic Act 6657

Ancestral lands — For purposes of this Act, ancestral lands of each indigenous cultural community shall include, but not be limited to, lands in the actual, continuous and open possession and occupation of the community and its members; Provided that the Torrens System shall be respected.

The rights of these communities to their ancestral lands shall be protected to ensure their economic, social and cultural well-being. In line with the principles of self-determination and autonomy, systems of land ownership, land use and modes of settling disputes of all these communities must be recognized and respected.

Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, the PARC may suspend the implementation of CARP with respect to ancestral lands for the purpose of identifying and delineating such lands. Provided, that in the autonomous regions, the respective legislatures may enact their own laws on ancestral domain subject to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles enunciated in this Act and other national laws.

B. Republic Act No. 8371 — IPRA LAW

Section 3 (a) Ancestral Domains — Subject to Section 56 hereof, refer to all areas generally belonging to ICCs/IPs comprising lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and natural resources therein, held under a claim of ownership, occupied or possessed by ICCs/IPs, by themselves or through their ancestors, communally or individually since time immemorial, continuously to the present except when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of government projects or any other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private individuals/corporations, and which are necessary to ensure their economic, social and cultural welfare. It shall include ancestral lands, forests, pasture, residential, agricultural, and other lands individually owned whether alienable and disposable or otherwise, hunting grounds, burial grounds, worship areas, bodies of water, mineral and other natural resources, and lands which may no longer be exclusively occupied by ICCs/IPs but from which they traditionally had access to for their subsistence and traditional activities, particularly the home ranges of ICCs/IPs who are still nomadic and/or shifting cultivators;

Section 3 (b) Ancestral Lands — Subject to Section 56 hereof, refers to land occupied, possessed and utilized by individuals, families and clans who are members of the ICCs/IPs since time immemorial, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, under claims of individual or traditional group ownership, continuously, to the present except when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth, or as a consequence of government projects and other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private individuals/corporations, including, but not limited to, residential lots, rice terraces or paddies, private forests, swidden farms and tree lots

2. Statement of Policies under Joint DAR-DENR-LRA-NCIP Administrative Order No. 01-12 (January 25, 2012).

• SECTION 7. Recognition of the Rights of the ICCs/IPs, Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries and Patentees.

a. As mandated under the law, the rights of the ICCs/IPs over their ADs/ALs shall be protected to ensure their economic, social and cultural well-being. Systems of land ownership, land use, and modes of settling land disputes of the ICCs/IPs shall be recognized and respected in line with the principle of self-determination and autonomy.

b. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship, whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization of other natural resources, including lands of the public domain under lease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands.

xxx xxx xxx

• SECTION 8. Indigenous Concept of Ownership: Right to Transfer Ancestral Land. — Ancestral domains/lands and all resources found therein from the material bases of the ICCs/IPs' cultural integrity. The indigenous concept of ownership, therefore, generally holds that ancestral domains are the ICCs/IPs' private but communal property which belongs to all generations, whether delineated or not. By virtue of native title over these lands, the rights of the ICCs/IPs to their ADs/ALs shall be recognized and respected. Such right shall include the right to transfer ancestral land or property rights to/among members of the same ICCs/IPs, subject to customary laws and traditions of the community concerned, provided, that in any subsequent transfer/transaction involving Ancestral Land, a corresponding title (judicial form) shall be provided by NCIP.

• SECTION 10. Recognition of Existing Property Rights. — Property rights within ADs/ALs already existing and/or vested upon the effectivity of R.A. No. 8371 shall be respected. These include titles issued administratively and judicially (i.e., EPs, CLOAs, Free Patents/Homestead Patents and other titles issued under the Agrarian Reform Program and patents issued by the DENR). . . .

3. Implementing Rules and Regulations:

• Joint DAR-DENR-LRA-NCIP Administrative Order No. 01-12, January 25, 2012. Clarifying, Restating and Interfacing the Respective Jurisdictions, Policies, Programs and Projects of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Land Registration Authority (LRA) and the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) in Order to Address Jurisdictional and Operational Issues Between and Among the Agencies.

• DAR A.O. No. 4, Series of 2003. Rules on Exemption of lands from CARP Coverage under Section 3 (c) of Republic Act 6657 and Department of Justice No. 44, Series of 1990.

• Joint DAR-DENR-LRA-NCIP Memorandum Circular No. 1, Series of 2011. Creation of a Joint Task Force Which Shall Determine Policy Direction in Order to Address Jurisdictional and Operational Issues Between the DAR, DENR, LRA and NCIP Over Agricultural, Public, and/or Ancestral Lands.

IX. JURISPRUDENCE

A. DELFIN LAMSIS et al., vs. MARGARITA SEMON DONG-E G.R. No. 173021, October 20, 2010

The application for issuance of a Certificate of Ancestral Land Title pending before the NCIP is akin to a registration proceeding. It also seeks an official recognition of one's claim to a particular land and is also in rem. The titling of ancestral lands is for the purpose of "officially establishing" one's land as an ancestral land. Just like a registration proceeding, the titling of ancestral lands does not vest ownership upon the applicant but only recognizes ownership that has already vested in the applicant by virtue of his and his predecessor-in-interest's possession of the property since time immemorial.

xxx xxx xxx

Given that a registration proceeding (such as the certification of ancestral lands) is not a conclusive adjudication of ownership, it will not constitute litis pendentia on a reivindicatory case where the issue is ownership. "For litis pendentia to be a ground for the dismissal of an action, the following requisites must concur: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties who represent the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases is such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other case." The third element is missing, for any judgment in the certification case would not constitute res judicata or be conclusive on the ownership issue involved in the reivindicatory case. Since there is no litis pendentia, there is no reason for the reivindicatory case to be suspended or dismissed in favor of the certification case.

B. CENTRAL MINDANAO UNIVERSITY vs. THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY et al., G.R. No. 184869, September 21, 2010

The education of the youth and agrarian reform are admittedly among the highest priorities in the government socio-economic programs. In this case, neither need give way to the other. Certainly, there must still be vast tracts of agricultural land in Mindanao outside the CMU land reservation which can be made available to landless peasants, assuming the claimants here, or some of them, can qualify as CARP beneficiaries. To our mind, the taking of the CMU land which had been segregated for educational purposes for distribution to yet uncertain beneficiaries is a gross misinterpretation of the authority and jurisdiction granted by law to the DARAB.

The decision in this case is of far-reaching significance as far as it concerns state colleges and universities whose resources and research facilities may be gradually eroded by misconstruing the exemptions from the CARP. These state colleges and universities are the main vehicles for our scientific and technological advancement in the field of agriculture, so vital to the existence, growth and development of this country.

It did not matter that it was President Arroyo who, in this case, attempted by proclamation to appropriate the lands for distribution to indigenous peoples and cultural communities. As already stated, the lands by their character have become inalienable from the moment President Garcia dedicated them for CMU's use in scientific and technological research in the field of agriculture. They have ceased to be alienable public lands.

Besides, when Congress enacted the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act (IPRA) or Republic Act 8371 in 1997, it provided in Section 56 that "property rights within the ancestral domains already existing and/or vested" upon its effectivity "shall be recognized and respected." In this case, ownership over the subject lands had been vested in CMU as early as 1958. Consequently, transferring the lands in 2003 to the indigenous peoples around the area is not in accord with the IPRA.

Furthermore, the land registration court considered the claims of several tribes belonging to the area's cultural communities in the course of the proceedings for the titling of the lands in CMU's name. Indeed, eventually, only 3,080 hectares were titled in CMU's name under OCTs 0-160, 0-161 and 0-162. More than 300 hectares were acknowledged to be in the possession of and subject to the claims of those tribes.

C. THE CITY MAYOR OF BAGUIO vs. Atty. BRAIN MASWENG G.R. No. 165003, February 2, 2010

Petitioners contend that injunction, as an original and principal action, falls within the jurisdiction of the regular courts. The NCIP may issue TROs and writs of preliminary injunction only as an auxiliary remedy to a pending case before it. Petitioners also assert that there was no factual and legal basis for the NCIP's issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.

xxx xxx xxx

In City Government of Baguio City, we held:

. . . the NCIP may issue temporary restraining orders and writs of injunction without any prohibition against the issuance of the writ when the main action is for injunction. The power to issue temporary restraining orders or writs of injunction allows parties to a dispute over which the NCIP has jurisdiction to seek relief against any action which may cause them grave or irreparable damage or injury. (emphasis provided)

Private respondents base their claim to the disputed area on an alleged time-immemorial possession and a survey plan awarded to their forebears by the Director of Lands in 1920. In 1940, Proclamation No. 603 withdrew the contested area from sale or settlement and reserved the same for animal breeding station purposes, subject to private rights. The claim of respondents on the subject land is still pending before the NCIP. Thus, their rights are mere expectations, not the present and unmistakable right required for the grant of the provisional remedy of injunction. Moreover, the structures subject of the demolition order were either built or being constructed without the requisite permit at the time the demolition order was issued in 2003. Hence, private respondents were not entitled to the preliminary injunction issued by the NCIP.

D. THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF BAGUIO CITY vs. ATTY. BRAIN MASWENG et al., G.R. No. 180206, February 4, 2009

The NCIP is the primary government agency responsible for the formulation and implementation of policies, plans and programs to protect and promote the rights and well-being of indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs) and the recognition of their ancestral domains as well as their rights thereto. In order to fully effectuate its mandate, the NCIP is vested with jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving the rights of ICCs/IPs. The only condition precedent to the NCIP's assumption of jurisdiction over such disputes is that the parties thereto shall have exhausted all remedies provided under their customary laws and have obtained a certification from the Council of Elders/Leaders who participated in the attempt to settle the dispute that the same has not been resolved.

In addition, NCIP Administrative Circular No. 1-03 dated April 9, 2003, known as the Rules on Pleadings, Practice and Procedure Before the NCIP, reiterates the jurisdiction of the NCIP over claims and disputes involving ancestral lands and enumerates the actions that may be brought before the commission.

E. HEIRS OF DICMAN et al. vs. JOSE CARIÑO, G.R. No. 146459, June 8, 2006

Petitioners argue that Proclamation No. 628 issued by then President Carlos P. Garcia on January 8, 1960 had the effect of "segregating" and "reserving" certain Igorot claims identified therein, including one purportedly belonging to the "Heirs of Dicman," and prohibiting any encumbrance or alienation of these claims for a period of 15 years from acquisition of patent. But by the time the Proclamation had been issued, all rights over the property in question had already been vested in private respondent. The executive issuance can only go so far as to classify public land, but it cannot be construed as to prejudice vested rights. Moreover, property rights may not be altered or deprived by executive fiat alone without contravening the due process guarantees of the Constitution and may amount to unlawful taking of private property to be redistributed for public use without just compensation.

The recognition, respect, and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples to preserve and develop their cultures, traditions, and institutions are vital concerns of the State and constitute important public policies which bear upon this case. To give life and meaning unto these policies the legislature saw it fit to enact Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known as The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997, as a culminating measure to affirm the views and opinions of indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities on matters that affect their life and culture. The provisions of that law unify an otherwise fragmented account of constitutional, jurisprudential and statutory doctrine which enjoins the organs of government to be vigilant for the protection of indigenous cultural communities as a marginalized sector, to protect their ancestral domain and ancestral lands and ensure their economic, social, and cultural well-being, and to guard their patrimony from those inclined to prey upon their ignorance or ductility. As the final arbiter of disputes and the last bulwark of the Rule of Law this Court has always been mindful of the highest edicts of social justice especially where doubts arise in the interpretation and application of the law. But when in the pursuit of the loftiest ends ordained by the Constitution this Court finds that the law is clear and leaves no room for doubt, it shall decide according to the principles of right and justice as all people conceive them to be, and with due appreciation of the rights of all persons concerned.

X. STRUCTURE OF THE DECISION

A. NATURE OF THE CASE

• The opening paragraph should discuss the nature of the case. The reader then knows specifically what the RD is being asked to decide. State how the matter is before the RD. Identify the parties and the nature of the proceedings.

Example:

"This is a case involving the petition for exemption from CARP coverage for being an ancestral domain which was filed on _____________________ for the landholding with CADC _______________________ located at ______________________ with an area _________________."

B. FACTS

• Those facts necessary to a disposition of the matter under consideration should be set forth. Facts should be stated logically and concisely. A decision need not and should not set forth all the facts that may be involved in the case. Only a narrative statement of the controlling facts should be made. Controlling facts are facts which, when added together, enable the judge to come to some factual conclusion that affects the outcome of the case. The writer has to be selective; the RD must know which facts are material to his readers and their understanding of the decision. There must be no misstatement of facts. An improper factual recitation can result in irreversible miscarriage of justice.

Example:

"The applicant ____________________ is a member of ____________ as certified by the NCIP. The area was covered under CARP through the issuance of NOC dated ___________________ which was received on ________________ by _______________. The application for exemption was filed on ________________ at the PARO office of ____________________ which is _____ days from receipt of the NOC.

C. ISSUE/S

• Once these preliminary matters have been covered, the writer must identify the specific legal or factual issues to be discussed. State the issues simple enough that even a non-lawyer, can read and understand. Discuss each issue individually.

Example:

"Whether or not the subject landholding belongs to the ancestral domain of the applicant which is exempted from the coverage of CARP."

D. LAW, RULES AND REGULATIONS AND JURISPRUDENCE

• Next, systematically analyze the law, rules and jurisprudence (if there's any), as it pertain to the facts of the case leading to the conclusions.

Example:

"Under R.A. 6657 and R.A. No. 8371, ______________________. This is further clarified by the Joint DAR-DENR-LRA-NCIP Administrative Order No. 01-12 which states ____________________________________________. The Supreme Court decided in the case of _______________________________ (G.R. ___________) that __________________________________."

E. DECISION

• Having covered each issue, the RD should summarize the dispositions by bringing together the conclusions into a decision.

Example:

"From the records of the case, the subject landholding indeed belongs to the ancestral domain of the applicant. The applicant was able to present and prove the requirements for the exemption as provided for by law, namely _____________________. Considering that the subject landholding belongs to the ancestral domain of the applicant, the application is hereby granted and the subject property is declared exempted from CARP coverage."

2013

HELP CENTER

CONTACT INFORMATION

Department of Agrarian Reform
Elliptical Road, Diliman
Quezon City, Philippines

Copyright Information

2013

HELP CENTER

CONTACT INFORMATION

Department of Agrarian Reform Elliptical Road, Diliman Quezon City, Philippines

Copyright Information

Department of Agrarian Reform
Elliptical Road, Diliman
Quezon City, Philippines