SCRIPT

Narrator:

The Municipal of La Paz wanted to establish a forest park in a portion of their municipal boundary. Said
municipality first set up a fence surrounding such forest park.

An information was relayed to the Loreto Municipality that a part of the forest park overlapped in their
boundary.

A member of Manobo Tribe wanted to hunt in the disputed land but the fence established by La Paz
Municipality prevented them by doing so. The Manobo Tribe had been issued with a Certificate of
Ancestral Domain in January 19, 1999.

On the other hand, Certificates of Land Ownership were issued in an alienable and disposable land,
forest land, and ancestral domain in the province of Agusan del Sur in September 5, 2004. Some of these
CLOA beneficiaries were also affected by the construction of the fence because a greater part of their
land was fenced which destroyed some of their crops.

The Perez Clan also raised an issue that a part of their land which was titled by the DENR in November
21, 2006 was also affected by the fence.

- INDIVIDUAL ACTING FOR IP, CLOA, and OCT (PEREZ)

Narrator: The dispute between the municipalities of La Paz and Loreto were referred to the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan in order to resolve the dispute.

- GOV. ALONTO, MAYOR OF LA PAZ (KC), AND MAYOR OF LORETO (KHRIAR)

Narrator: The NGO communicated the concerns of the Manobo Tribe and the CLOA beneficiaries to the
Governer Alonto who later on called for the convention of the provincial development council.

Ruh: Opening statement. Introduction of the parties.

Ruh: Give results from the Boundary dispute between Municipality of La Paz and Loreto. On the first
issue of whether the political boundary inside the CADT

KC: give contention regarding the boundary inside CADT

Ruh: Now we will tackle the issue of the Free Patent issued by the DENR to the Perez Clan. We need to
consider in this issue that the free patent issued by DENR to the Perez Clan was located inside the
ancestral domain of the Manobo Tribe.

May we ask the Perez clan to give their contention regarding this.

Perez: the Perez clan having been in an open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the land
and with and OCT validly issued by the DENR are deemed to be the rightful owners of the subject land.
Their rights over the land cannot be prejudiced as they are innocent occupants and possessors of the
land. The issuance of free patents to residential lands provides security of tenure to the Perez clan.
DENR:

Ancestral Domain cannot be alienated and must prevail over the Free Patent.

In the case at bar, a Free Patent was acquired in a land which was already under the jurisdiction of the
IPRA and thus forming part of an ancestral domain, which is covered by a CADT, and such land never
became part of alienable agricultural land subject to disposition which would make the OCT from the
free patent must be cancelled in favor of the IPs. According to R.A no. 8371, Indigenous People’s rights
act,

Sec 56. property rights within the ancestral domains already existing and/or vested upon
effectivity of this act, shall be recognized and respected

Thus because the OCT from the free patent was issued only after the effectivity of the IPRA, it does not
hold against the rights of the IPs as private owners. As stated in the case of Tancuntian vs Gempesaw,

“A cause of action for declaration of nullity of free patent and certificate of title would require
allegations of the plaintiff’s ownership of the contested lot prior to the issuance of such free
patent and certificate of title, as well as the defendant’s mistake, as the case may be. In such
case, the nullity arises strictly not from the fraud or deceit but from the fact that the land is
beyond the jurisdiction of the agency to bestow the patent… The Real party in interest is not the
state but the plaintiff who alleges a pre-existing right of ownership over the parcel of land in
question even before the grant of title to the defendant.”

The title issued to the Chavez family is void since it was issued by a government agency that had no
jurisidiction to issue to the title. To wit as to the same case of Tancuntian vs Gempesaw, et al.

“The court stated further that “[t]he jurisdiction of the Director of Lands is limited to public land
and does not extend to land already privately owned. A free patent which purports to convey
land to which the Government no longer has title at the time of its issuance does not vest any
title in the patentee as against the registered owner.”

Manobo Tribe:

NGO: Patents issued to Perez Clan should be declared as void by DENR. The CADT issued to the Manobo
Tribe should be uphold over the patents. Our organization seeks to sustain the IP’s Right Act of 1997,
Sec. 57 that they shall have the priority rights in the utilization of the natural resources entitled to them
since time immemorial. We seek to further assist them in the process and go hand in hand with other
government agencies to certainly give what is due to them.

Further, the CADT was issued in January 19, 1999 while the patent was only issued in November 21,
2006. Section 56 of the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 or the IPRA Law states that “property
rights within the ancestral domains already existing and/or vested upon effectivity of this Act, shall be
recognized and respected.” The Perez Clan does not hold prior existing property rights.
NCIP:

The Patents provided to perez clan is also untenable as in Vital vs. Anore, et al., 90 Phil. 855 (1952); Heirs
of Parco vs. Haw Pia, 45 SCRA 164 (1972) & Agne VS. Gascon (1990)

The free patent and subsequent title issued pursuant thereto are null and void. The indefeasibility and
imprescriptibility of a Torrens title issued pursuant to a patent may be invoked only when the land
involved originally formed part of the public domain. If it was a private land, the patent and certificate of
title issued upon the patent are a nullity.

Being null and void, the free patent granted and the subsequent title of the Perez clan produce no legal
effects whatsoever. Quod nullum est, nullum producit effectum

The land in question having been withdrawn from the public domain and granted to the Manobo Tribe,
prior to the subsequent award of the patent.

Although the Perez clan and the DENR may aver that a period of one year has already expired from the
time a certificate of title was issued pursuant to a public grant, said title does not become
incontrovertible but is null and void if the property covered thereby is originally of private ownership,
and an action to annul the same does not prescribe.

A free patent which purports to convey land to which the Government did not have any title at the time
of its issuance does not vest any title in the patentee as against the true owner (Citing Vital vs. Anore)

The Perez Clan’s OCT is null and void, the land should be reconveyed to the Manobo Tribe.

RUH: After hearing the contentions of the Perez Clan, DAR, Manobo Tribe and NCIP regarding the free
patent, let’s now proceed to the Certificate of Land ownership issued over forest lands and over an area
covered already by CADT. On the issue of whether or not CLOA titles covering forest lands be recognized,
let’s now hear both sides.

CLOA Farmers:

DAR: CLOAs over forest lands

Section 10 of RA 6657 provides the exemptions from the coverage of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program. Specifically,

Section 10. Exemptions and Exclusions. — Lands actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be
necessary for parks, wildlife, forest reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds,
watersheds, and mangroves, national defense, school sites and campuses including experimental farm
stations operated by public or private schools for educational purposes, seeds and seedlings research
and pilot production centers, church sites and convents appurtenant thereto, mosque sites and Islamic
centers appurtenant thereto, communal burial grounds and cemeteries, penal colonies and penal
farms actually worked by the inmates, government and private research and quarantine centers and all
 lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over, except those already developed shall be exempt
from the coverage of the Act.

The meaning of "agricultural lands" covered by the CARL was explained further by the DAR in its AO No.
1, Series of 1990, dated 22 March 1990, entitled "Revised Rules and Regulations Governing Conversion
of Private Agricultural Land to Non-Agricultural Uses," issued pursuant to Section 49 of the CARL. Thus:

Agricultural land refers to those devoted to agricultural activity as defined in RA 6657 and not classified
as mineral or forest by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and its
predecessor agencies, and not classified in town plans and zoning ordinances as approved by the
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and its preceding competent authorities prior to 15
June 1988 for residential, commercial or industrial use. (Emphasis omitted)

In this case, CLOAs issued over lands declared as forest lands are excluded from the coverage of the
CARP. Possession of forest land, no matter how long cannot convert it into private property.

Therefore, it is with great dismay that the Department failed to carry out extensive research to
determine the nature of the land before the issuance of the CLOA title over farmer-beneficiaries. Thus,
CLOA titles of the farmer-beneficiaries has to be cancelled.

RUH: The second issue before us is whether or not CLOA titles be recognized in preference to the CADT

Farmers:

It is but our utmost concern that the soil we have tilled for months have been put to no value due to the
construction of fences by the LGU. Such operation was not primarily brought before us nor had they
asked for our concern and consent in building. Is it not that the poorest of the poor are of primary
consideration by the government? These certain areas, where fences are built, were planted with seeds
waited to be harvested, produce that sustain us for the days to come until the new season of harvest
arrives. It is quite ironic that public officials are given the utmost respect by us who are standing below
them and yet we are almost always invisible on their eyes. Had they not forgotten that we, the ‘public’
who had made them stand as an ‘official,’ a ‘delegate,’ a ‘representative’ to speak for us. And yet the
least action of formal notice of such operation was not done. An utter disrespect and inconsideration. Us
farmers have been feeding the stomach of our nation and yet disrespect is what we receive in exchange.
Be that as it may, all we are asking is perhaps for the LGU to address the unjust taking of our livelihood to
be justly compensated. It may be the least thing our respected government can provide for the loss we
have suffered.

The government had indeed promulated laws that enable farmers to acquire ownership over the land
they till or atleast receive a just share of the fruits thereof. The rights of the farmer is, as advanced by the
constitution, given an utmost respect. However, there is no strong laws that totally lays down protection,
there still exists loopholes between these provisions. A facade of sympathy for the farmers but beneath
the face are holes where the interest of others are really that which are considered, other sectors are
given more importance. This is especially in terms of advancing the rather economic side of capitalist,
taking advantage of the need for sustenance and living by these farmers. The reality speaks not of
emotional sentiments towards these poor sector but rather, are seen as mere devices for production,
mechanical tools instead of living person providing also for themselves and their families. The Congress
shall promulgate laws that genuinely provide the farmers incentives, assurance and security for their
farmed or awarded agricultural lands and harvests thereof. In the true pursuance for social justice.

DAR:

CLOAs over ancestral domain

RA 6657, Sec. 9 exempts ancestral lands on the coverage of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
Clearly,
Section 9. 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 Systems shall be
respected.

The right 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, the
systems of land ownership, land use, and the modes of settling land 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
this Act 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.

According to IPRA Law, Property rights within ancestral domain lands already existing and/or vested
upon the effectivity of R.A. No. 8371 are 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). However, in this case, CLOA titles are granted by the
Department of Agrarian Reform after the issuance of CADT – hence, there are no prior rights to speak of.

NGO: Our organization will uphold the CADT of the Manobo Tribes over the CLOA issued to the farmers
but this does not mean that the beneficiaries will be left with no remedy. They should be given the
proper remedy since they were awarded CLOAs under CARL which was designed to alleviate the farmers.
We will assure that Department of Agrarian Reform and Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee will
prioritize the farmers of lands available for distribution under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program, and that they be relocated within a reasonable time. Our organization will also help secure the
rentals since they accruing to the farmers because they have the CLOA over it and they have been
religiously paying and tilling land. Coordination with the Land Bank of the Philippines on the payment of
rentals will be prioritized by our organization. We will work hand in hand with government entities and
the local farmer’s group if any. We will ensure that the farmers are given due process and are not
deprived of their rights on this issue. Court action will be sought if necessary.

MANOBO TRIBE:

NCIP: In Reference to the existing CLOAS; Pursuant to Republic Act No. 6657, two requisites must be
met, namely:

(1) that the land must be devoted to agricultural activity; and

(2) that the land must not be classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land

Considering that the area of coverage of the CLOA clearly covers forest land as apparent in the map ,
forest land cannot be covered by a CLOA, thus the existing CLOA, must be reverted from titled land to
forest land immediately as it is in direct contravention of the law. Previously declared forested land
cannot be covered by a CLOA. If there is an existing CLOA, a case will be filed in court to revert the titled
land to forest land.

RUH: After hearing the contentions of the parties, the different agencies which has jurisdiction over the
different issues involved will now present their resolutions.

DENR:

In the present case, a Free Patent was acquired in a land which was already under the jurisdiction of the
IPRA and thus forming part of an ancestral domain, and such land never became part of alienable
agricultural land subject to disposition which would make the OCT from the free patent be cancelled in
favor of the IPs.

Indigenous people must file a declaration of nullity over the title of the owners of the OCT that is within
their Ancestral Domain. Issuance of the title under the Free Patent by the Land Management Bureau of a
land is considered void.

DENR must seek assistance from the LGU or other appropriate Government agencies that could help
compensate all the expenses incurred by the Perez Clan for the cultivation of the disputed land. Also,
DENR should allow Perez Clan to choose from the Government’s available public land classified as
alienable land and it shall be considered as a relief to the hassle they caused to the Perez Clan.

DAR: With the abovementioned facts and the applied law and jurisprudence regarding the case
matter, it is clear that the CLOA issued by the DAR cannot prosper as a valid title due to the fact that it is
void ab initio. The fact that the CLOA’s coverage in this case which includes forest lands cannot vest
ownership since forest lands cannot be acquired by private persons. With regards to the overlapping
boundaries between CLOA, CADT and Free Patent, CLOA still fails to vest ownership because the CARP
Law respects ancestral domain titles, which cannot be included in its coverage. In the case of Free
Patent, the CLOA may prosper, if not for the Free Patent’s defective coverage, which is also forest land.
Thus, the CLOA cannot vest ownership to its beneficiaries in this case.

While the nullity of CLOA is proper, the DAR cannot just leave things as it is to the prejudice of the CLOA’s
beneficiaries. To solve this, DAR has been empowered to cancel and issue new titles by reason of errors
in technical descriptions, as provided by Administrative Order No. 06. Series of 2014 Section 1 to wit;

Section 1. Applicability. – These rules shall apply to landholdings awarded by the Department of Agrarian
Reform where the technical description provided in the Emancipation Patent and Certificate of Land
Ownership Award (CLOA) is erroneous and therefore requires cancellation in order to be corrected. It
shall also apply to those EPs or CLOAs that requires cancellation to be corrected due to erroneous survey
returns and those which needs survey adjustments.

The ordinary rules on the cancellation of EPs or CLOAs, however, shall apply whenever there is an issue
pertaining to the identification of the agrarian reform beneficiary or the correctness of the coverage of
the landholding, or any portion thereof.

Furthermore, these rules shall not apply to the cancellation of EPs or CLOAs that will result to the
decrease in the number, increase in the number, or change of beneficiaries, except for those mentioned
in Section 8 hereof.

By provision of AO no. 6, empowering the DAR to cancel and correct the titles it issues, it is imperative
that with the cancellation of the CLOA, the DAR has to issue a new CLOA which covers only alienable and
disposable agricultural lands found adjacent to the forest lands and the CADT boundaries, plus damages
to the beneficiaries for whatever prejudice they suffered from the effects of the title correction.
Therefore, to avoid prejudice to the CLOA beneficiaries, the DAR is hereby mandated to issue a new
CLOA in lieu of the previous defective CLOA, and to compensate the beneficiaries for whatever damages
accrued.

NCIP:

1. In Reference to the existing CLOAS; Pursuant to Republic Act No. 6657, two requisites must be met,
namely: (1) that the land must be devoted to agricultural activity; and (2) that the land must not be
classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land considering that the area of
coverage of the CLOA clearly covers forest land as apparent in the map , forest land cannot be covered by
a CLOA, thus the existing CLOA, must be reverted from titled land to forest land immediately as it is in
direct contravention of the law. Previously declared forested land cannot be covered by a CLOA. If there
is an existing CLOA, a case will be filed in court to revert the titled land to forest land.

2. The Patents provided to perez clan is also untenable as in Vital vs. Anore, et al., 90 Phil. 855 (1952);
Heirs of Parco vs. Haw Pia, 45 SCRA 164 (1972) & Agne VS. Gascon (1990)
The free patent and subsequent title issued pursuant thereto are null and void. The indefeasibility and
imprescriptibility of a Torrens title issued pursuant to a patent may be invoked only when the land
involved originally formed part of the public domain. If it was a private land, the patent and certificate of
title issued upon the patent are a nullity.

Being null and void, the free patent granted and the subsequent title of the Perez clan produce no legal
effects whatsoever. Quod nullum est, nullum producit effectum

The land in question having been withdrawn from the public domain and granted to the Manobo Tribe,
prior to the subsequent award of the patent.

Although the Perez clan and the DENR may aver that a period of one year has already expired from the
time a certificate of title was issued pursuant to a public grant, said title does not become
incontrovertible but is null and void if the property covered thereby is originally of private ownership,
and an action to annul the same does not prescribe.

A free patent which purports to convey land to which the Government did not have any title at the time
of its issuance does not vest any title in the patentee as against the true owner (Citing Vital vs. Anore)

The Perez Clan’s OCT is null and void, the land should be reconveyed to the Manobo Tribe.

3. In reference to the LGU of La Paz, Article XII Section 5 of the Constitution states:

The State, subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national development policies and programs,
shall protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands to ensure their
economic, social, and cultural well-being.

The La Paz LGU should know very well, their role and responsibility in the protection of the Manobo
Tribe, we urge the LGU to aid in mediation of the plights of The Manobo tribe and not add to the strife
they have, the LGU should respect the ancestral domain of the Manobo tribe and that in all the
programs there should be prior and informed consent in whatever projects or infrastructure they wish to
pursue.

The conflicting claims in the land are tedious and difficult because of the huge number of documents
already issued by the various government agencies. Given that indigenous tribes are often heavily
dependent on their ancestral domain for food, livelihood and their cultural and religious practices.
Government documents like mining permits or CLOAs, when they overlap with the tribe's CADT, put at
risk their entire way of life. Many times, the CADT is not respected by government officials who still
stand by the Regalian doctrine but the IPs think the opposite. The IPs believe that their land was theirs
from the beginning and the government is just recognizing it now.

The title issued to the ICCs/IPs which may be the Certificates of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) and
Certificates of Ancestral Lands Title (CALT) are native titles which are already held as far back as memory
reaches, and owned privately by ICCs/IPs. However, the issuance of these titles doesn’t vest them with
ownership or title instead it merely recognized the fact that indeed they own such lands. Even without
such, the IPs/ICCs they are still considered as the rightful owners over such ancestral lands. Furthermore,
CADTs do not vest them rights to own, they are merely instruments used by the state to recognize what
they rightfully own since time immemorial. A challenge in the validity of the CADTs or CALTs, does not
necessarily affect the fact that the IPs/ICCs are still entitled to their ancestral lands and have a better
right over it.

As the agency tasked to reconcile the overlapping of government-issued titles within the ancestral
domain areas of indigenous people in the province suffering the most from overlapping land titles, we
are of the position to safeguard the rights of the IP, protect their primordial right to their ancestral
domain. Their very identity and life are anchored on the land that their ancestors have nurtured and
fought for with blood and sweat. Thus, they are the rightful owner of said land.

LGU LA PAZ:

• In the creation of forest park, the concerned Municipality must coordinate with the IP group
affected by such development. The Municipal Government may enter into an arrangement with the IP
community and employ their community in the management of the forest park.

• Furthermore, the concerned Municipality must provide development programs to the affected IP
group and cultivate a good working relationship with them.

• With regards to the Perez Clan, pursuant to Section 19 of the LGC, the local government unit
concerned may exercise its power of eminent domain to expropriate the affected land for the
development of the park.

• For the CLOA holders, they should be resettled. Hence, it would be appropriate that the
concerned LGU must provide them with the necessary assistance by coordinating their concerns with the
appropriate national agencies and allocating funds for their livelihood support and development.