APPLICATION OF CUSTOMARY LAW IN DETERMINING THE OWNERSHIP AND EXTENT

OF ANCESTRAL DOMAINS
Unduran v. Aberasturi
G.R. No. 181284, October 20, 2015

DOCTRINE:
The application of customary law is limited to disputes concerning property rights or
relations in determining the ownership and extent of the ancestral domains, where all the
parties involved are members of indigenous peoples, specifically, of the same indigenous
group.

FACTS:

Petitioners are members of Tribal Association MILALITTRA, or Talaandig tribe, who

claimed to have been living since birth on the land located at Barangay Miarayon,
Talakag,... Bukidnon, Mindanao, which they inherited from their forefathers.
Respondents, represented by Aberasturi, claimed to be the lawful owners and possessor of
an unregistered parcel of agricultural land
On March 3, 2004, respondents filed a Petition for Accion Reivindicatoria, with Prayer for
the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction with
Damages before the Regional Trial Court of Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon (RTC).
On March 23, 2004, the rest of the petitioners filed their Motion to Dismiss, alleging that the
RTC had no jurisdiction over the case.
As awardees of a CADT, petitioners argued that NCIP has exclusive and original jurisdiction
over the case, as the subject matter concerns a dispute and controversy over an ancestral
land/domain of Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs)/Indigenous Peoples (IPs).
On July 1, 2004, the NCIP filed a Motion to Refer the Case to the Regional Hearing Office-
National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (RHO-NCIP), alleging that the RTC had no
jurisdiction over the subject matter.

ISSUE:

Shall claims and disputes within ICCs/IPs and/or between ICCs/IPs be resolved using
customary laws, consistent with the State policy under the Constitution and the IPRA to
recognize, respect and protect the customs, traditions and cultural integrity and institutions
of the ICCs/IPs?

RULING:

NO. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED. Anent the use of customary laws in
determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domains, suffice it to say that such is
allowed under paragraph 2, Section 5 of Article XII of the Constitution. Said provision states,
"The Congress may provide for the applicability of customary laws governing property rights
and relations in determining the ownership and extent of the ancestral domains." Notably,
the use of customary laws under IPRA is not absolute, for the law speaks merely of primacy
of use.
The application of customary law is limited to disputes concerning property rights or
relations in determining the ownership and extent of the ancestral domains, where all the
parties involved are members of indigenous peoples, specifically, of the same indigenous
group. It therefore follows that when one of the parties to a dispute is a nonmember of an
indigenous group, or when the indigenous peoples involved belong to different groups, the
application of customary law is not required.
Like any other law, the objective of IPRA in prescribing the primacy of customary law in
disputes concerning ancestral lands and domains where all parties involved are indigenous
peoples is justice. The utilization of customary laws is in line with the constitutional policy of
recognizing the application thereof through legislation passed by Congress.
Furthermore, the recognition and use of customary law is not a novel idea in this
jurisdiction. Under the Civil Code, use of customary law is sanctioned, as long as it is
proved as a fact according to the rules of evidence, and it is not contrary to law, public order
or public policy.