IPRA LAW

REPUBLIC ACT 8374

AN ACT TO RECOGNIZE, PROTECT AND PROMOTE THE RIGHTS OF
INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES/INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, CREATING A
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, ESTABLISHING
IMPLEMENTING MECHANISMS, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES
 Definition of Ancestral Domain (Sec. 3 a)
• It is defined as 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,
communally or individually since time immemorial. It covers the total
environment, including the spiritual and cultural bonds to the areas
which the ICCs/IPs possess, occupy and use and to which they have
claims of ownership.
 Definition of Ancestral Lands (Sec. 3 b)
• It is defined under the IPRA as land occupied, possessed and utilized
by individuals, families and clans who are members of the ICCs/IPs
since time immemorial. Ancestral lands include residential lots, rice
terraces or paddies, private forests, swidden farms and tree lots.
These may be found within ancestral domains.
Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (Sec. 3 c)
Certificate of Ancestral Lands Title (Sec. 3 d)
• In recognition of the rights and ownership of the ICCs/IPs over
ancestral domains and ancestral lands, it provides for the issuance of
Certificates of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) and Certificates of
Ancestral Lands Title (CALT).

• Based on native title

• This is different from a Torrens System

 Jurisprudence relating to IPRA Law
• Cruz vs Secretary of DENR
Facts: IPRA Law amounts to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership
over lands of public domain as well as the natural resources
Issue: Is IPRA Law in conflict with the Constitution
Held: No. Ownership over the natural resources in the ancestral domains remains
with the State and the rights granted by the IPRA to the ICCs/IPs over the natural
resources in their ancestral domains merely gives them, as owners and occupants
of the land on which the resources are found, the right to the small scale
utilization of these resources, and at the same time, a priority in their large scale
development and exploitation. Additionally, ancestral lands and ancestral
domains are not part of the lands of the public domain. They are private lands
and belong to the ICCs/IPs by native title, which is a concept of private land title
that existed irrespective of any royal grant from the State. However, the right of
ownership and possession by the ICCs/IPs of their ancestral domains is a limited
form of ownership and does not include the right to alienate the same.
 In conclusion with IPRA Law
• The enactment of IPRA strengthens the ownership claims of ICCs/IPs
over the vast lands they have occupied and possessed since time
immemorial.
• It respects property rights within the ancestral domains.
Section 69 of PD 705 (Forestry Code)
• It provides for unlawful occupation or destruction of forest lands
• Any person who enters and occupies or possesses, or makes kaingin for his own private
use or for others any forest land without authority under a license agreement, lease,
license or permit, or in any manner destroys such forest land or part thereof, or causes
any damage to the timber stand and other products and forest growths found therein, or
who assists, aids or abets any other person to do so, or sets a fire, or negligently permits
a fire to be set in any forest land shall, upon conviction, be fined and imprisoned.
• The Court shall further order the eviction of the offender from the land and the
forfeiture to the Government of all improvements made and all vehicles, domestic
animals and equipment of any kind used in the commission of the offense. If not suitable
for use by the Bureau, said vehicles shall be sold at public auction, the proceeds of which
shall accrue to the Development Fund of the Bureau.
• In case the offender is a government official or employee, he shall, in addition to the
above penalties, be deemed automatically dismissed from office and permanently
disqualified from holding any elective or appointive position.
 Jurisprudence with respect to IPRA Law in
relation to Forestry Code
• The City Government of Baguio City et al vs Masweng et al (G.R. no. 180206; February 4, 2009)
 Facts:
• City Mayor ordered the demolition of illegal structures constructed by the private respondents on a portion of Busol Watershed
Reservation without the required building permits and in violation of Section 69 of PD 705 (Forestry Code).
• Private respondents basically claimed that the lands where their residential houses stand are their ancestral lands which they have
been occupying and possessing openly and continuously since time immemorial.
• And that their ownership thereof have been expressly recognized in Proclamation No. 15 dated April 27, 1922 and recommended
by the DENR for exclusion from the coverage of the Busol Forest Reserve.
• They, thus, contended that the demolition of their residential houses is a violation of their right of possession and ownership of
ancestral lands accorded by the Constitution and the law, perforce, must be restrained.
• The government claims that Busol Forest Reservation is exempt from ancestral claims as it is needed for public welfare. It is
allegedly one of the few remaining forests in Baguio City and is the city's main watershed. Also, the IPRA provides that Baguio City
shall be governed by its Charter. Thus, private respondents cannot claim their alleged ancestral lands under the provisions of the
IPRA.
• As a defense, the private respondents contend that IPRA does not exempt Baguio City from its coverage nor does it state that there
are no ancestral lands in Baguio City.
 Issue: Whether the Busol Watershed Reservation is exempted under the IPRA Law
Held:
• No. Busol Forest Reservation is not exempted under the IPRA Law.
• Its exemption from the IPRA, however, cannot ipso facto be deduced
because the law concedes the validity of prior land rights recognized or
acquired through any process before its effectivity. The IPRA demands that
the city's charter respect the validity of these recognized land rights and
titles.
• The Proclamation No. 15, however, does not appear to be a definitive
recognition of private respondents' ancestral land claim. The proclamation
merely identifies the predecessors-in-interest of private respondents, as
claimants of a portion of the Busol Forest Reservation but does not
acknowledge vested rights over the same.