AGNES 1

G.R. No. 156022. July 6, 2015 removed therefrom.” And the CADT was issued
AURELLANO AGNES, EDUARDO AGNES, ESPIRITU notwithstanding the existence of Presidential
AGNES, ESTELLA AGNES, PANTALEON AGNES, FILOTEO Proclamation No. 1578, which recognized the
APUEN, IMELDA APUEN, MOISES APUEN, ROGELIO existence of private rights already extant at the time.
APUEN, GONZALO AUSTRIA, JAVIER AUSTRIA, Thus, although the issuance of the CADT in favor of
BONIFACIO EGUIA, LYDIA EGUIA, MANUEL GABARDA, the Tagbanua ICC to develop, control, manage,
SR., MELECIO GARCIA, CRISTOBAL LOQUIB, MARIA and utilize Calauit does not affect the propriety or
LOQUIB, MATERNO LOQUIB, GEORGE MACANAS, impropriety of the execution of the Resettlement
MODESTO MANLEBTEN, JUANITO AUSTRIA, CONCHITA Agreements per se, the same, however, gainsays the
BERNAL, AURELIO BERNAL, PABLITO BOGANTE, avowed consequence of said contracts, that is, to
FELICIANO CANTON, ALFREDO CAÑETE, CECILIA remove and transfer the settlers from Calauit to the
CA¬ÑE¬TE, CHERRY DE MESA, ROBERTO NOVERO, resettlement areas in Halsey and Burabod.
PERLITO PABIA, RODRIGO SABROSO, JUAN TALORDA,
and RAFA¬ELA TRADIO, petitioners, vs. REPUBLIC OF Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Under the law, a
THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) “refers
to a title formally recognizing the rights of possession
Constitutional Law; Land Registration; Ancestral and ownership of Indigenous Cultural Communities
Domain; Indigenous Cultural Communities; (ICCs)/[Indigenous Peoples (IPs)] over their ancestral
Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title; With the domains identified and delineated in accordance
issuance by the Office of the President (OP) of the with [the] law.”—The issuance by the respondent of
Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT), an CADT No. R04-BUS-0308-062 over 3,683.2324 (the
ostensive successor to the Resettlement entire area subject of the Resettlement Agreements)
Agreements, to the Tagbanua Indigenous Cultural in favor of the settlers, including the petitioners,
Community (ICC), the resolution of the question on provide their occupation and/or settlement on the
the propriety or impropriety of the latter contract subject land an apparent color of authority at the
and their effects on the continued stay of the settlers very least by virtue of Republic Act No. 8371.
on Calauit appears to have been rendered moot Precisely, under the law, a Certificate of Ancestral
and academic.—With the issuance by the Office of Domain Title “refers to a title formally recognizing the
the President of the CADT, an ostensive successor to rights of possession and ownership of
the Resettlement Agreements, to the Tagbanua ICCs/[Indigenous Peoples (IPs)] over their ancestral
Indigenous Cultural Community (ICC), the resolution domains identified and delineated in accordance
of the question on the propriety or impropriety of the with [the] law.” Therefore, the settlers continued stay
latter contract and their effects on the continued in Calauit has become a nonissue. As such, any
stay of the settlers on Calauit appears to have been discussion on the matter of the propriety of the
rendered moot and academic. Under the CADT, the Resettlement Agreements and their effects would
Tagbanua ICC is given authority “TO HAVE AND be mere surplusage.
HOLD IN OWNERSHIP, the x x x described ancestral
domain as their private but community property, Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Under Section 12
which belongs to all generations of the said of Republic Act (RA) No. 8371, individual members of
Indigenous Cultural Community/Indigenous cultural communities, with respect to individually
Peoples”; and “TO DEVELOP, CONTROL, MANAGE owned ancestral lands, the option to secure title to
and UTILIZE COLLECTIVELY the said ANCESTRAL the same must be done in accordance with the
DOMAIN with all the rights, privileges and provisions of Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 141, as
responsibilities appurtenant thereto, subject to the amended, or the Land Registration Act (LRA) No.
condition that the said ancestral domain shall NOT 496.—Relative to the recent prayer of the petitioners
be SOLD, DISPOSED, nor DESTROYED.” that they be awarded individual titles of ownership
over portions of Calauit as the issuance of CADT in
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The right to favor of the Tagbanua ICC amounts to an
ancestral domain carries with it the right to “stay in affirmation and recognition of the property rights of
the territory and not to be removed therefrom.”— their ancestors from whom they trace their present
More significantly, the aforequoted provision individual claims, this Court points out that under
provides that the right to ancestral domain carries Section 12 of Republic Act No. 8371, individual
with it the right to “stay in the territory and not to be members of cultural communities, with respect to
AGNES 2
individually owned ancestral lands, the option to relocated in the area in view of the establishment of
secure title to the same must be done in the Yulo King Ranch.
accordance with the provisions of Commonwealth
Act No. 141, as amended, or the Land Registration 6. In 1975, however, the settlers were told that the
Act 496. supposed titling of their landholdings was not going
to push through as the island was going to be set up
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the as a zoo for rare and exotic animals from other
Court of Appeals. countries.

Before Us is a Petition for Review on 7. Further, they were told that instead, they would be
Certiorari1essentially seeking the reversal of the April resettled in Halsey and Burabod in Culion, where the
24, 2002 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.- lands were claimed to be more fertile and where full
G.R. CV No. 46222, entitled “Republic of the government services and facilities such as irrigation,
Philippines v. Agnes, et al.,” which affirmed the electricity, waterworks, public markets, roads,
February 23, 1994 Decision3of the Regional Trial housing, school, and health care, would be
Court (RTC) of Palawan, Branch 49, Fourth Judicial provided by the government.
Region, Puerto Princesa City in Civil Case No. 2262,
entitled “Republic of the Philippines v. Aurellano 8. The petitioners alleged that, along with the other
Agnes, et al.” settlers, they could not refuse the offer because they
were harassed and intimidated by members of the
RESOLUTION Philippine Constabulary (PC). In their petition and
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: answers to written interrogatories, they mentioned
instances of violence and harassment by PC
The facts, as culled from the records, are as follows: soldiers.9 They were also told that they had no
choice but to leave Calauit, as the island was
1. Calauit Island (Calauit) is a 3,600-hectare island government property and that, as illegal settlers,
that forms part of the Calamianes Island group in the they could be sued.10
Province of Palawan.
9. The terms of the proposed relocation was later
2. The petitioners claim to be among the more than embodied in individual Resettlement Agreements
250 families (“settlers”) who lived in Calauit as wherein the government, through the Secretary of
successors of the early settlers therein. Natural Resources, among other things, undertook to
provide the signatory settler the following: (1) an
3. They are members of the “Balik Calauit agricultural lot in exchange for the area he would be
Movement,” which was organized for the purpose of vacating; and (2) payment for the improvements on
reclaiming the lands they used to occupy. the properties to be vacated, as ascertained in
individualized appraisal sheets.12 In exchange, the
4. The settlers lay claim on the lands of Calauit either signatory settler agreed to (1) be resettled to any
(1) through a predecessor, who had become a titled selected resettlement area in Busuanga; (2)
owner by virtue of Act No. 926; or (2) by means of an relinquish “totally his rights and claim (sic) over the
imperfect title, which they, by themselves or their land thereon in favor of the Government”; and (3)
ancestors, had acquired by way of “unbroken, vacate the premises upon receipt of fifty percent
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and (50%) of the total amount of the appraised value of
cultivation” of the lands therein until their relocation the improvements, with the other half to be paid
in 1977. upon proof of actual evacuation from the
property.13
5. In 1973, the Bureau of Lands started to survey
Calauit. After some time, the surveyors met some 10. On August 31, 1976, then President Ferdinand E.
resistance to the continued survey, but the settlers Marcos (Pres. Marcos) signed Presidential
were told that it was being done for purposes of Proclamation No. 1578, which declared the Island of
titling the latter’s landholdings, as well as to Calauit as a Game Preserve and Wildlife Sanctuary,
determine how much land may be apportioned for viz.:
people coming from Busuanga who were to be
AGNES 3
PROCLAMATION NO. 1578 President of the Philippines
DECLARING AS A GAME PRESERVE AND WILDLIFE By the President:
SANCTUARY A CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND OF THE (SGD.) JUAN C. TUVERA
PUBLIC DOMAIN EMBRACED AND SITUATED IN THE Presidential Assistant
ISLAND OF CALAUIT, MUNICIPALITY OF NEW
BUSUANGA, ISLAND OF BUSUANGA, PROVINCE OF 11. Thereafter, the Department of Natural Resources
PALAWAN. (DNR) established the Calauit Special Project (CSP)
to manage and operate the Calauit Sanctuary.
 Upon recommendation of the Secretary of
Natural Resources and pursuant to the 12. On March 11, 1977, President Marcos issued
authority vested in me by law, I, FERDINAND Proclamation No. 1626, declaring certain portions of
E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, do the Culion Leper Colony Reservation excluded from
hereby withdraw from sale, settlement, the Reservation and opening them to disposition
exploration or exploitation and set aside and under the provisions of the Public Land Act. These
declare, subject to private rights, if any there portions, known as Halsey and Burabod, became
be, as a Game Preserve and Wildlife the resettlement areas for the settlers of Calauit.
sanctuary a certain parcel of land of the
public domain embraced and situated in the 13. In 1981, the Presidential Committee for the
island of Calauit, Municipality of New Conservation of the Tamaraw (PCCT) absorbed the
Busuanga, island of Busuanga, province of CSP; and in 1985, it entered into a contract with the
Palawan, which tract of land is more Conservation and Resource Management
particularly described as follows: Foundation, Inc. (CRMF) to carry out the functions of
the CSP.
 “A parcel of land (Calauit Island) bounded
on the North by Mindoro Strait; on the East by 14. According to petitioners, life in the resettlement
Mindoro Strait; on the South by the areas was unbearable. They claimed that the lands
Municipality of New Busuanga, Palawan and in Halsey and Burabod were unsuitable for
Illultuk Bay; and on the West by the South habitation and agriculture; and that the
China Sea; situated in the Municipality of government failed to comply with the promised
New Busuanga, Calamianes Group, Province services and facilities.
of Palawan, Island of Busuanga; containing
an area of THREE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED 15. After the EDSA People Power and the ouster of
(3,400) HECTARES, more or less.” Pres. Marcos, the settlers formed the “Balik Calauit
Movement,” and aired their collective grievances to
 NOTE: These data are approximate and the new administration of then President Corazon C.
subject to future survey. Aquino (Pres. Aquino).

 The hunting, wounding, taking or killing within 16. Some of the settlers tried to return to the Island
said territory of any wild animals or birds but were driven away by the CRMF; thus, they went
and/or the destruction of any vegetation or to the Philippine Commission on Human Rights
any act causing disturbance to the habitat (PCHR) to file a complaint against the government
of the wildlife herein protected are hereby and CRMF.
prohibited.
17. A fact-finding commission was established by the
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand PCHR and dialogues were held among the parties.
and caused the seal of the Republic of the On February 17 and 23, 1987, the fact-finding
Philippines to be affixed. commission submitted two memoranda
recommending (1) the repeal of Proclamation No.
 Done in the City of Manila, this 31st day of 1578 for being violative of the settlers’ Bill of Rights;
August in the year of Our Lord, nineteen and (2) the immediate return of the settlers to
hundred and seventy-six. Calauit.

 (SGD.) FERDINAND E. MARCOS

AGNES 4
18. In June 1987, the petitioners, with the other In an Order dated April 6, 1988, the RTC of Makati,
settlers, once again tried to return to Calauit, with denied the motion for the issuance of a writ of
success this time around. preliminary injunction, and upheld the
constitutionality of Proclamation No. 1578.
19. Meantime, the PCHR referred the
aforementioned complaint to then DNR Secretary 22. On April 17, 1989, the RTC of Makati issued
Fulgencio Factoran, who, on July 14, 1987 issued an another Order dismissing the case without prejudice,
Order directing the settlers who returned to Calauit to wit:
to “immediately vacate the sanctuary and return to
their resettlement areas of Halsey [and] Burabod.” On motion of counsel for defendants and there
being no objection on the part of counsel for the
20. In response to the above Order, the concerned plaintiffs, the instant case is hereby ordered
settlers filed a Petition for Certiorari with this Court, dismissed without prejudice.
docketed as G.R. No. 80034, entitled “Reynaldo
Rufino, et al. v. Hon. Secretary Fulgencio Factoran, et 23. The foregoing Order was prompted by
al.” In a Resolution dated February 16, 1988, this petitioners’ manifestation that they had a pending
Court dismissed the petition for being factual in appeal before the Office of the President relative to
nature, to wit: the July 14, 1987 Order of DENR Secretary Factoran
directing the petitioners and the other settlers to
 G.R. No. 80034 (Reynaldo Rufino, et al. v. Hon. leave Calauit and return to their resettlement areas
Secretary Fulgencio Factoran, et al.). It in Halsey and Burabod. The Office of the President
appearing from the allegations and ultimately denied said appeal.
arguments of the parties in their respective
pleadings that the issues presented to the 24. Some of the settlers failed to comply with
Court for determination are mainly factual in Secretary Factoran’s July 14, 1987 Order to vacate
nature, among them the manner of the Calauit; thus, the Republic of the Philippines (herein
petitioners’ transfer from Calawit to Halsey respondent), represented by the DENR Secretary,
and Burabod, the conditions obtaining in the filed a Complaint for Specific Performance and
places to which they have been relocated, Recovery of Possession with Prayer for Preliminary
the terms and conditions of their Injunction against herein petitioners before the RTC,
resettlement, including the benefits, if any, Branch 49, Puerto Princesa City. The complaint was
extended to them by the government, the docketed as Civil Case No. 2262, entitled “Republic
number of persons involved in the Back-to- of the Philippines v. Aurellano Agnes, et al.”
Calawit Movement, and whether or not
there have really been violations of human 25. In said Complaint, herein respondent alleged
rights against the petitioners, the Court, not that the petitioners’ repossession and reoccupation
being a trier of facts, Resolved to DISMISS the of portions of Calauit are patently unlawful and
petition, without prejudice to the filing by the grossly reproachable as they had already waived
petitioners of the appropriate action before and relinquished whatever rights they had on the
the regional trial court for trial and island when they signed and executed their
determination of the said factual issues. respective Resettlement Agreements.

21. On March 10, 1988, the petitioners filed a petition  The respondent claimed that by returning to
with the RTC, Branch 134, Makati, Metro Manila, Calauit, the petitioners breached their
docketed as Civil Case No. 88-298, entitled contracts, the Resettlement Agreements,
“Reynaldo Rufino, et al. v. Hon. Fulgencio Factoran, which they voluntarily and freely executed.
et al.,” for the issuance of a preliminary injunction Moreover, by virtue of Proclamation No.
against the Department of Environment and Natural 1578, which closed Calauit to exploitation
Resources (DENR), to enjoin the latter from and settlement, the respondent contended
implementing Secretary Factoran’s July 14, 1987 that the petitioners are staying on the island
Order, and for the declaration of nullity of as “squatters” on public land. The
Proclamation No. 1578 for being unconstitutional. respondent also complained of the great
damage and disturbance the petitioners
AGNES 5
were doing to the natural resources and the The RTC held that the Resettlement Agreements,
protected animals in Calauit. being duplicates of the originals and records of the
Republic of the Philippines, are public documents
26. In their “Answer with Counterclaims,” herein notwithstanding their lack of notarization. As such,
petitioners alleged that the Resettlement they are admissible in evidence even if the parties’
Agreements were executed with deceit, signatures were not authenticated. The RTC also
intimidation, misrepresentation, and fraud; hence held that the vices of consent allegedly attached to
they are illegal and void. the Resettlement Agreements would have served to
render the agreements merely voidable and not
 They also contested their admissibility on the void. However, the four-year period within which the
ground that they are private documents, petitioners could bring an action for annulment had
which have not been authenticated. They long prescribed. On the issue of rescission, the RTC
also claim that it was actually the respondent held that even assuming that the petitioners had
who breached its contract by providing poor grounds for rescission, they “could not unilaterally
resettlement areas, which resulted in their rescind the agreements, since the right to rescind
subhuman and marginal existence. The must be invoked judicially.”
petitioners denied causing damage to the
island and the animals in Calauit, as they only The RTC, in deciding against the petitioners’ return to
occupied the coastal areas, away from the Calauit, proclaimed:
animals’ roaming grounds and habitat. The
petitioners then prayed for the nullification of  National Interest in the preservation of
the Resettlement Agreements for having Calauit as Game Preserve and Sanctuary is
been procured through violence, the overriding factor which argues against
intimidation, deceit, misrepresentation, and the right of [petitioners] to return to Calauit.
fraud. In the alternative, they called for the Assuming that the Resettlement Areas
rescission of the contracts for respondent’s provided by [Respondent]-Republic did not
material breach of its obligations. Lastly, they measure up to the expectations of
asked for Twenty-Five Thousand (P25,000.00) [petitioners], the recourse was not to renege
Pesos each as temperate, exemplary, and on their Agreements by returning to Calauit
moral damages. and contributing to the disturbance or
destruction of the Preserve, but to demand
Ruling of the RTC that [Respondent] deliver the fair value of the
properties they vacated.
On February 23, 1994, the RTC of Puerto Princesa City
rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of which  [Respondent]-Republic is not entirely free
reads: from blame for what appears to have been
an unwise choice of Relocation Sites and
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby orders the should be given an opportunity to rectify the
defendants (with the exception of Alfredo Aunang, mistake.
Juana Apuen, Eufricinia Bello, Bartolome Darol,
Eduardo de Mesa, Aurora Eco, Eleuterio Fresnillo, 28. The petitioners sought the Court of Appeals’
Jovita Gabarda, Fausto Lledo, Pampilo Sabroso, reversal of the RTC’s decision in their Appeal
Ismael, Rafaela and Regalado Tradio) and anyone docketed as C.A.-G.R. CV No. 46222, entitled
claiming under them to vacate the respective areas “Republic of the Philippines v. Aurellano Agnes, et
where they have resettled at Calauit Island, al.”
Busuanga, Palawan.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
27. Plaintiff-Republic through the Secretary of the
Department of Natural Resources, is ordered to 29. In a Decision promulgated on April 24, 2002, the
procure another suitable Relocation Sites for Court of Appeals affirmed the assailed ruling of the
defendants within six months from receipt of this RTC, viz.:
Decision.
AGNES 6
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed right to possess land when not supported by
Decision dated February 23, 1994, of the Regional evidence or other persuasive proof to substantiate
Trial Court of Palawan and Puerto Princesa City, their claim. They are merely indicia of a claim of
Branch 49, Fourth Judicial Regional, Palawan ownership.
docketed as Civil Case No. 2262, is hereby
AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs. 33. Considering that the [petitioners] failed to
present convincing evidence and persuasive proof
30. The Court of Appeals concurred in the findings to substantiate their claim, the presumption of State
and conclusions of the RTC. In addition, it disputed ownership stands. It is also well to note that the bases
the petitioners’ claim of ownership on the lands of of [respondent]’s superior right of possession and
Calauit; and held that absent any proof to the ownership was sufficiently supported both by law
contrary, the presumption that Calauit is of public and jurisprudence.
domain and thus belongs to the State stands. The
Court of Appeals explained its pronouncement in The petitioners moved for the reconsideration of the
this wise: aforequoted Decision, which was subsequently
denied in a Resolution dated November 18, 2002.
31. Pursuant to [Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987
Constitution], all lands of the public domain belong Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari premised
to the State, and that the State is the source of any on the following assignments of error:
asserted right to ownership in land and charged with
the conservation of such patrimony. Issues

 Corollarily, all lands not otherwise appearing I. THE COURT A QUO’SRULING REJECTING
to be within private ownership are presumed PETITIONERS’ CLAIMS OF OWNERSHIP OF THE
to belong to the State. Ergo, a positive act of LANDHOLDINGS IN DISPUTE, ABSENT “POSITIVE”
the government is needed to declassify a PROOF OF ALIENABILITY THEREOF, IS CONTRARY NOT
forest land into alienable or disposable land ONLY TO THE APPLICABLE LAW AND THE
for agricultural or other purposes. x x x. CONTROLLING DECISIONS OF THIS HONORABLE
Therefore, to acquire ownership of public COURT BUT TO THE UNCONTROVERTED
land, the same must first be released from its DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND THE
original classification and reclassified as RESPONDENT’S ADMISSIONS AS WELL.
alienable or disposable land. In the absence II. IN REJECTING THE PETITIONERS’ CLAIMS OF
of such classification, the land remains OWNERSHIP OF THE LANDHOLDINGS IN DISPUTE, THE
unclassified public land until released COURT A QUO HAS GONE BEYOND THE ISSUES RAISED
therefrom and rendered open to disposition. BY RESPONDENT AND HAS IN EFFECT COLLATERALLY
Thus, the burden of proof in overcoming the ATTACKED AND NULLIFIED THE CERTIFICATES OF TITLE
presumption of state ownership of land lies IN THE NAMES OF PETITIONERS’ ANCESTORS,
upon the claimant. x x x. x x x x CONTRARY TO ESTABLISHED JURISPRUDENCE.
III. THE COURT A QUO’S IMPOSITION OF THE
32. x x x [T]he law itself stated that only alienable and REQUIREMENT OF THE PRESENTATION OF AN
disposable lands, particularly agricultural lands, can EXECUTIVE DECLARATION OF ALIENABILITY AS A
be acquired through possession and occupation for CONDITION TO THE RECOGNITION OF PETITIONERS’
at least 30 years. Since the subject property is still ALREADY PERFECTED CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP IS NOT IN
unclassified when [the petitioners] and their ACCORD WITH LAW AND APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF
ancestors occupied the same, whatever possession THIS HONORABLE COURT.
they or their predecessors may have had and IV. THE COURT A QUO’S RULING WITHHOLDING
however long, cannot ripen into private ownership. RECOGNITION OF PETITIONERS’ PERFECTED CLAIMS
Moreover, the fact that the disputed property may TO THEIR CALAUIT LANDHOLDINGS RUNS COUNTER
have been declared for taxation purposes in the TO THE CONTROLLING CASE OF Sta. Monica Industrial
names of [petitioners] or their predecessors-in- and Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals
interest does not necessarily prove ownership. This is INVOLVING CLOSELY SIMILAR FACTS.
due to the fact that tax declarations and receipts
are not conclusive evidence of ownership or of the
AGNES 7
V. THE COURT A QUOVIOLATED THE BASIC RULES OF I. In any event, even if the petition complied with the
EVIDENCE AND CONTRAVENED SETTLED aforesaid requirements, it would still be denied, as
JURISPRUDENCE IN ADMITTING THE UNNOTARIZED petitioners failed to show that a reversible error had
RESETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS IN DISPUTE DESPITE THE been committed by the appellate court.
FACT THAT NOT A SINGLE WITNESS WAS PRESENTED TO
DISCLOSE THEIR SOURCE AND TO ATTEST TO THEIR DUE  The petitioners filed a Motion for
EXECUTION AND DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF THE Reconsideration44on March 19, 2003, which
OFFICIAL APPROVALS REQUIRED FOR THEIR this Court denied with finality on April 7,
COMPLETENESS AS OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. 2003.45
VI. THE DECISION HAS IGNORED THE UNREBUTTED
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE AND THE DOCUMENTED  On June 2, 2003, the petitioners filed a Motion
ADMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT ESTABLISHING THE to Admit Second Motion for Reconsideration
VIOLENCE, THREATS, FRAUD AND DECEIT EMPLOYED with their Second Motion for
TO COMPEL PETITIONERS TO SUBMIT TO THEIR Reconsideration, wherein their “pro bono”
RELOCATION, AND WARRANTING A DECLARATION counsels pleaded for leniency for “their
OF THE NULLITY OF THE RESETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS, shortcomings.” From June 2 to 20, 2003, the
ASSUMING THEIR EXECUTION BY PETITIONERS. Court received several pleadings from
VII. THE COURT A QUOFURTHER IGNORED THE various lawyers who were entering their
UNCONTROVERTED TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE AND THE appearances as collaborating pro bono
DOCUMENTED ADMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT, counsels for the petitioners and who
ESTABLISHING THE NONARABLE CHARACTER OF THE manifested that they were adopting the
LANDS ALLOTTED TO PETITIONERS IN THE Second Motion for Reconsideration filed on
RESETTLEMENT SITES AND THE SUBHUMAN June 2, 2003.
CONDITIONS PREVAILING THEREIN WHICH JUSTIFIED
THE UNILATERAL RESCISSION OF THE RESETTLEMENT  On June 9, 2003, the Bishop of the Apostolic
AGREEMENTS, ASSUMING ARGUENDO THEIR Vicariate of Taytay, Palawan, also wrote then
EXECUTION BY PETITIONERS. Chief Justice Hilario Davide to plead for the
VIII. THE TRIAL COURT AND [THE] COURT OF APPEALS admission of the Second Motion for
HA[VE] ABUSED THEIR DISCRETION IN GRANTING Reconsideration filed by the petitioners,
RESPONDENT THE RIGHT TO EVICT PETITIONERS AGAIN whom he claimed were under his pastoral
AND TO HAVE THEM RELOCATED IN “A MORE jurisdiction as he was their parish priest in
SUITABLE” RESETTLEMENT SITE. 1977-1978 and 1985-1989.
IX. IN DENYING PETITIONERS’ CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
THE COURT A QUO HAS OVERLOOKED AND IGNORED II. In consideration of all the above pleadings, in a
THE UNCONTRADICTED FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. Resolution dated June 25, 2003, this Court resolved
to: (1) grant the petitioners’ motion to admit their
SUPREME COURT Second Motion for Reconsideration; (2) set aside its
February 3, 2003 Resolution; (3) reinstate the present
I. Initially, this petition was denied in a Resolution petition; (4) require the respondent to comment to
dated February 3, 2003 for noncompliance with the the petition; and (5) note the other pleadings and
Rules of Court, to wit: letters filed before it.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to DENY the III. In the meantime, on March 25, 2008, pursuant to
petition for review on certiorari of the decision dated Republic Act No. 8371, entitled “The Indigenous
April 24, 2002 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997,” the Office of the
No. 46222 for failure to comply with requirement no. President, through the National Commission on
three (3), as the copy of the assailed decision Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), issued a Certificate of
submitted is not duly certified as a true copy thereof. Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) No. R04-BUS-0308-
Also, it lacks a written explanation why the service or 06251 over 3,683.2324 hectares of land in the
filing thereof was not done personally [Section 11, Municipality of Busuanga, Province of Palawan, in
Rule 13, Rules of Civil Procedure]. favor of the Tagbanua Indigenous Cultural
Community, which comprised the communities of
Barangays Calauit and Quezon, Calauit Island, and
AGNES 8
Municipality of Busuanga. The pertinent portions of IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, and by authority of R.A.
the CADT read as follows: 8371, the National Commission on Indigenous
Peoples, hereby causes these letters to be made
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: patent and the seal of the National Commission on
Indigenous Peoples to be hereunto affixed.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the mandates of the 1987 Issued in Quezon City, Philippines on this 25th day
Philippine Constitution to protect the rights of ofMarch, 2008.
Indigenous Cultural Communities to their ancestral
lands and domains, respect and preserve their IV. In view of the foregoing development on
culture and ensure their economic, social and October 19, 2011, this Court issued a Resolution
cultural well-being, and in accordance with the requiring the parties “to move in the premises by
provisionsof R.A. 8371, ‘AN ACT TO RECOGNIZE AND informing the Court, within ten (10) days from notice,
PROMOTE THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS CULTURAL of supervening events and/or subsequent
COMMUNITIES/INDI¬GENOUS PEOPLES, CREATING developments pertinent to the case which may be
THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS of help to the Court in its immediate disposition x x x.”
PEOPLES, ESTABLISHING IMPLEMENTING
MECHANISMS, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR  The petitioners, in a Manifestation,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,’ the members of the emphasized at the outset that no event has
indigenous Cultural Community/ies belonging to transpired, which may have rendered the
theTAGBANUA *** indigenous peoples, located case herein moot and academic. The
atMunicipality of Busuanga, Province of Palawan petitioners reiterated that the relief they are
and comprising the communities ofBarangays after is their individual titles to the areas they
Calauit and Quezon, Calauit Island, Municipality of are currently occupying in the Calauit Island.
Busuanga, Province of Palawan, having
continuously occupied, possessed and utilized, since V. And, in their Compliance the petitioners averred
time immemorial, under a claim of ownership certain further that the issuance of the CADT “in favor of the
ancestral domain situated in Municipality of Tagbanua Indigenous Cultural Community amounts
Busuanga, Province of Palawan, Island of Luzon, to an affirmation and recognition of the property
Philippines containing an area of Three Thousand Six rights of their ancestors from whom [they] traced
Hundred Eighty-Three and 2324/10000 (3,683.2324) their present individual claims.” Thus, the petitioners
hectares more or less, more particularly bounded claim that there is factual and legal bases for this
and described on Page 2 hereof are hereby Court to proceed and confirm their right of
recognized of their rights thereto. ownership over the subject properties in the Calauit
Island.
NOW THEREFORE, said Indigenous Cultural
Community of TAGBANUA***Indigenous Peoples, VI. On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor
whose members at the time of this issuance appear General (OSG) for the respondent Republic of the
hereunder as Annex A, is hereby issued this Philippines manifested that per Memorandum dated
Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title: March 5, 2012 by the Regional Executive Director,
DENR-IV-MIMAROPA, the following are the updates
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD IN OWNERSHIP, the above on the ground:
described ancestral domain as their private but
community property, which belongs to all 3. Verification made by this office on the status of
generations of the said Indigenous Cultural occupation of the Balik Calauit Movement (BCM) as
Community/Indigenous Peoples. stated in Civil Case No. 2262 particularly the forty-
seven (47) defendants (Aurellano Agnes, et al.) and
TO DEVELOP, CONTROL, MANAGE and UTILIZE as confirmed by Bgy. Chairman Gabarda of Bgy.
COLLECTIVELY the said ANCESTRAL DOMAIN with all Buluang Busuanga, Palawan wherein Calauit Island
the rights, privileges and responsibilities appurtenant is a Sitio of said Barangay, disclosed that forty (40)
thereto, subject to the condition that the said are at present in the Calauit Island and seven (7) are
ancestral domain shall NOT be SOLD, DISPOSED, nor outside Calauit Island. The latter are Eufricina Bello,
DESTROYED. Cherry Demesa, Eduardo Demesa, Jovita Gabarda,
Manuel Gabarda, Sr., Ismael Tradio and Rafaella
AGNES 9
Tradio who settled to adjacent and other placed under the management of the Provincial
Barangay[s] of Busuanga, Palawan. Further, of the Government of Palawan thru an Executive Order.
forty-seven (47) BCM members, nine (9) of them The issuance of CADT over Calauit Island including
were already dead (Juana Apuen, Javier Austria, the Calauit Preserve and Wildlife Sanctuary under
Conchita Barcebal, Aurora Eco, Lydia Equia, Fausto Presidential Proclamation 1578 is another current
Lledo, Materno Loquib, George Macanas and Juan problem.
Talorda) and one (1) was put in jail (Bonifacio Equia)
at the Provincial Jail in Puerto Princesa City x x x.  Thus, the OSG submitted that “the instant
petition must be decided on the merits
4. During the resettlement of BCM, Barangay[s] considering that the area in dispute remains
Halsey and Burabod in Culion, Palawan are the to be a Game and Wildlife Preserve and
barangay[s] which were identified as resettlement petitioners persist on their illegal occupation
sites. With this, some BCM members have applied thereof.”
and awarded with titles. They are Eduardo Agnes,
Espiritu Agnes, Pantaleon Agnes, Filatea Apuen, VII. Notwithstanding the matters raised by the
Juana Apuen, Moises Apuen, Alfredo Aunang, petitioners in this case, a review of the Complaint,
Javier Austria, Aurelio Bernal, Pablito Bogante, Answer with Counterclaims, and the rest of the
Alfredo Cañete, Bartolome Darol, Melecia Garcia, record of the instant petition readily reveals that the
Modesto Manlebten, Roberto Novero, Perlita Pabia, fundamental issue of the controversy between the
Pampilo Sabroso, Rodrigo Sabroso, Ismael Tradio, parties may be summed up into these: whether or not
Regalado Tradio, and Tirso Ustares, Jr. aside from the Resettlement Agreements are valid; and, more
other land areas they have acquired in Busuanga, importantly, whether or not the petitioners may be
Palawan x x x. compelled to vacate Calauit by virtue of their
obligations enumerated in the Resettlement
5. Recent documents acquired from National Agreements.
Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)-Provincial
Office, Puerto Princesa City particularly the VIII. With the issuance by the Office of the President
photocopied technical descriptions of the awarded of the CADT, an ostensive successor to the
Ancestral Domain showed that the Island of Calauit Resettlement Agreements, to the Tagbanua
as plotted by this Office was covered by Certificate Indigenous Cultural Community (ICC), the resolution
of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) R04-BUS-0308-062 of the question on the propriety or impropriety of the
bearing CADT-Lot No. 1-Ade-0403-005-Gni covering latter contract and their effects on the continued
3,572.9731 hectares, more or less aside from other stay of the settlers on Calauit appears to have been
islets included known as Lot No. 2-Mal¬ta¬no¬bong rendered moot and academic.
Island-Ade-0403-005, Lot. No. 3-Dimipac Island-Ade-
0403-005-Gni, Lot No. 4-Ade-0403-005-Gni, and Lot IX. Under the CADT, the Tagbanua ICC is given
No. 5-Ade-0403-005-Gni with corresponding areas authority “TO HAVE AND HOLD IN OWNERSHIP, the x
which are adjacent to Calauit Island x x x. x x described ancestral domain as their private but
community property, which belongs to all
6. At present, [a] certain Roy Dabuit is the Acting generations of the said Indigenous Cultural
Chairman of the Tagbanua Indigenous Cultural Community/Indigenous Peoples”; and “TO
Community who is the recipient of the said CADT in DEVELOP, CONTROL, MANAGE and UTILIZE
Calauit Island and other islets. COLLECTIVELY the said ANCESTRAL DOMAIN with all
the rights, privileges and responsibilities appurtenant
7. Furthermore, the undersigned was able to take thereto, subject to the condition that the said
pictures on the portions of Calauit Island which were ancestral domain shall NOT be SOLD, DISPOSED, nor
occupied by the BCM and Indigenous People DESTROYED.”
belonging to the Tagbanua Tribe. They have built
houses made of light materials, school (elementary  To be precise, Section 7 of Republic Act No.
and day care), small causeway and tribal hall. 8371 recognizes that the rights to ancestral
domains carry with it the rights of ownership
8. Moreover, the Calauit Preserve and Wildlife and possession of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral
Sanctuary still exist in the Island of Calauit and domains, which shall include the following:
AGNES 10
Section 7. Rights to Ancestral Domains.—The rights likewise be fully compensated for any resulting loss or
of ownership and possession of ICCs/IPs to their injury;
ancestral domains shall be recognized and
protected. Such rights shall include: d. Right in Case of Displacement.—In case
displacement occurs as a result of natural
a. Rights of Ownership.—The right to claim ownership catastrophes, the State shall endeavor to resettle the
over lands, bodies of water traditionally and actually displaced ICCs/IPs in suitable areas where they can
occupied by ICCs/IPs, sacred places, traditional have temporary life support systems: Provided, That
hunting and fishing grounds, and all improvements the displaced ICCs/IPs shall have the right to return
made by them at any time within the domains; to their abandoned lands until such time that the
normalcy and safety of such lands shall be
b. Right to Develop Lands and Natural Resources.— determined: Provided, further, That should their
Subject to Section 56 hereof, right to develop, ancestral domain cease to exist and normalcy and
control and use lands and territories traditionally safety of the previous settlements are not possible,
occupied, owned, or used; to manage and displaced ICCs/IPs shall enjoy security of tenure over
conserve natural resources within the territories and lands to which they have been resettled: Provided,
uphold the responsibilities for future generations; to furthermore, That basic services and livelihood shall
benefit and share the profits from allocation and be provided to them to ensure that their needs are
utilization of the natural resources found therein; the adequately addressed;
right to negotiate the terms and conditions for the
exploration of natural resources in the areas for the e. Right to Regulate Entry of Migrants.—Right to
purpose of ensuring ecological, environmental regulate the entry of migrant settlers and
protection and the conservation measures, pursuant organizations into the domains;
to national and customary laws; the right to an
informed and intelligent participation in the f. Right to Safe and Clean Air and Water.—For this
formulation and implementation of any project, purpose, the ICCs/IPs shall have access to
government or private, that will affect or impact integrated systems for the management of their
upon the ancestral domains and to receive just and inland waters and air space;
fair compensation for any damages which they may
sustain as a result of the project; and the right to g. Right to Claim Parts of Reservations.—The right to
effective measures by the government to prevent claim parts of the ancestral domains which have
any interference with, alienation and encroachment been reserved for various purposes, except those
upon these rights; reserved and intended for common and public
welfare and service; and
c. Right to Stay in the Territories.—The right to stay in
the territory and not to be removed therefrom. No h. Right to Resolve Conflict.—Right to resolve land
ICCs/IPs will be relocated without their free and prior conflicts in accordance with customary laws of the
informed consent, nor through any means other area where the land is located, and only in default
than eminent domain. Where relocation is thereof shall the complaints be submitted to
considered necessary as an exceptional measure, amicable settlement and to the Courts of Justice
such relocation shall take place only with the free whenever necessary. (Emphasis supplied)
and prior informed consent of the ICCs/IPs
concerned and whenever possible, they shall be X. More significantly, the aforequoted provision
guaranteed the right to return to their ancestral provides that the right to ancestral domain carries
domains, as soon as the grounds for relocation with it the right to “stay in the territory and not to be
cease to exist. When such return is not possible, as removed therefrom.” And the CADT was issued
determined by agreement or through appropriate notwithstanding the existence of Presidential
procedures, ICCs/IPs shall be provided in all possible Proclamation No. 1578, which recognized the
cases with lands of quality and legal status at least existence of private rights already extant at the time.
equal to that of the land previously occupied by
them, suitable to provide for their present needs and  Thus, although the issuance of the CADT in
future development. Persons thus relocated shall favor of the Tagbanua ICC to develop,
control, manage, and utilize Calauit does not
AGNES 11
affect the propriety or impropriety of the Precisely, under the law, a Certificate of Ancestral
execution of the Resettlement Agreements Domain Title “refers to a title formally recognizing the
per se, the same, however, gainsays the rights of possession and ownership of
avowed consequence of said contracts, ICCs/[Indigenous Peoples (IPs)] over their ancestral
that is, to remove and transfer the settlers domains … ally owned whether alienable and
from Calauit to the resettlement areas in disposable or otherwise, hunting grounds, burial
Halsey and Burabod. grounds, worship areas, bodies of water, mineral and
other natural resources, and lands which may no
XI. Verily, in Gancho-on v. Secretary of Labor and longer be exclusively occupied by ICCs/IPs but from
Employment,58 this Court emphasized that: which they traditionally had access to for their
subsistence and traditional activities, particularly the
It is a rule of universal application, almost, that courts home ranges of ICCs/IPs who are still nomadic
of justice constituted to pass upon substantial rights and/or shifting cultivators.”
will not consider questions in which no actual
interests are involved; they decline jurisdiction of Under Section 3(a), Republic Act No. 8371, the term
moot cases. And where the issue has become moot “ancestral domains” is defined as “[s]ubject to
and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, so Section 56 hereof [property rights within the
that a declaration thereon would be of no practical ancestral domains already existing and/or vested
use or value. There is no actual substantial relief to upon the effectivity of this Act, shall be recognized
which petitioners would be entitled and which would and respected], refers to all areas generally
be negated by the dismissal of the petition. belonging to ICCs/IPs comprising lands, inland
(Citations omitted) waters, coastal areas, and natural resources therein,
held under a claim of ownership, occupied or
From the above pronouncement, there is no possessed by ICCs/IPs, by themselves or through their
justiciable controversy anymore in the instant ancestors, communally or individually since time
petition in view of the issuance of CADT. There is no immemorial, continuously to the present except
longer any purpose in determining whether the Court when interrupted by war, force majeure or
of Appeals erred in affirming the Decision of the RTC displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a
since any declaration thereon would be of no consequence of government projects or any other
practical use or value. voluntary dealings entered into by government and
private individuals/corporations, and which are
Clearly, any decision of this Court on the present necessary to ensure their economic, social and
petition, whether it be an affirmance or a reversal of cultural welfare. It shall include ancestral lands,
the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals, would forests, pasture, residential, agricultural, and other
be equivalent in effect to an affirmance or an lands identified and delineated in accordance with
invalidation of the challenged Decision of the RTC. [the] law.”
But the Office of the President’s issuance of a 2008
Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title in favor of the Therefore, the settlers continued stay in Calauit has
settlers, including the petitioners, negates the need become a nonissue. As such, any discussion on the
to resolve the issues raised in the Complaint and matter of the propriety of the Resettlement
Answer with Counterclaims— whether or not the Agreements and their effects would be mere
petitioners may be compelled to vacate Calauit by surplusage.
virtue of their obligations enumerated in the
Resettlement Agreements. Although the moot and academic principle admits
of certain exceptions, none are applicable in this
The issuance by the respondent of CADT No. R04- case.
BUS-0308-062 over 3,683.2324 (the entire area
subject of the Resettlement Agreements) in favor of But emphasis must be made that the disposition of
the settlers, including the petitioners, provide their the instant petition does not at all touch on the
occupation and/or settlement on the subject land an propriety or impropriety of the issuance of the CADT.
apparent color of authority at the very least by virtue Such a question is not for this Court to take on at this
of Republic Act No. 8371. time as, in fact, it is not raised herein.
AGNES 12
Relative to the recent prayer of the petitioners that
they be awarded individual titles of ownership over
portions of Calauit as the issuance of CADT in favor
of the Tagbanua ICC amounts to an affirmation and
recognition of the property rights of their ancestors
from whom they trace their present individual claims,
this Court points out that under Section 12 of Republic
Act No. 8371, individual members of cultural
communities, with respect to individually owned
ancestral lands, the option to secure title to the same
must be done in accordance with the provisions of
Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, or the
Land Registration Act 496.

FALLO: In light of the foregoing, the issues invoked by

the parties no longer need to be discussed.

WHEREFORE, the April 24, 2002 Decision of the Court

of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 46222 is SET ASIDE,
and Civil Case No. 2262 is DISMISSED, for being moot
and academic. No costs. SO ORDERED.

Notes.—The Memorandum of Agreement on

Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) is of public concern,
involving as it does the sovereignty and territorial
integrity of the State, which directly affects the lives
of the public at large. (Province of North Cotabato
vs. Government of the Republic of the Philippines
Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain [GRP], 568 SCRA
402 [2008])

Ancestral domains remain as such even when

possession or occupation of these areas has been
interrupted by causes provided under the law, such
as voluntary dealings entered into by the
government and private individuals/corporations —
the issuance of TLA No. 43 in 1952 did not cause the
Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous
Peoples (ICCs/IPs) to lose their possession or
occupation over the area covered by TLA No. 43.
(Alvarez vs. PICOP Resources, Inc., 606 SCRA 444
[2009])