AGNES vs.
REPUBLIC
(G.R. No. 156022, July 06, 2015 Leonardo-De Castro, J.)
National Economy and Patrimony A CERTIFICATE OF ANCESTRAL DOMAIN TITLE
RECOGNIZES THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OVER THEIR ANCESTRAL DOMAINS,
APPURTENANT THERETO IS THE RIGHT TO STAY IN THE TERRITORY AND NOT TO BE REMOVED
THEREFROM
FACTS:
Petitioners claim to be among the first settlers in Calauit as successors of the early settlers
therein. Petitioners were removed from Calauit as the island was going to be set up as a zoo for
rare and exotic animals. In 1976, then President Marcos signed Presidential Proclamation No.
1578 declaring the Island of Calauit as a Game Preserve and Wildlife Sanctuary. President Marcos
then issued another proclamation, excluding certain portions of the Reservation and opening
them to disposition under the provisions of the Public Land Act as resettlement areas for the
settlers of Calauit, but found unsuitable for habitation by the petitioners. Thus, petitioners
returned to Calauit Island. Respondents alleged that the petitioners' repossession and
reoccupation of portions of Calauit are patently unlawful and grossly reproachable as they had
already waived and relinquished whatever rights they had on the island when they signed and
executed their respective Resettlement Agreements. The respondent also complained of the
great damage and disturbance the petitioners were doing to the natural resources and the
protected animals in Calauit. In 2008, during the pendency of the case in the Supreme Court,
pursuant to Republic Act No. 8371, entitled "The Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act of 1997," the
Office of the President, through the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), issued a
Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) over lands in the Municipality of Busuanga, Province
of Palawan, in favor of the Tagbanua Indigenous Cultural Community, which comprised the
communities of Barangays Calauit and Quezon, Calauit Island, and Municipality of Busuanga.
Petitioners averred that the issuance of the CADT "in favor of the Tagbanua Indigenous Cultural
Community amounts to an affirmation and recognition of the property rights of their ancestors
from whom they traced their present individual claims.”
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners may be compelled to vacate Calauit by virtue of their
obligations enumerated in the Resettlement Agreements.
HELD:
No. With the issuance by the Office of the President of the CADT, an ostensive successor to
the Resettlement Agreements, to the Tagbanua Indigenous Cultural Community (ICC), the
resolution of the question on the propriety or impropriety of the latter contract and their effects
on the continued stay of the settlers on Calauit appears to have been rendered moot and
academic. The right to ancestral domain carries with it the right to "stay in the territory and not
to be removed therefrom." And the CADT was issued notwithstanding the existence of
Presidential Proclamation No. 1578, which recognized the existence of private rights already
extant at the time. Thus, although the issuance of the CADT in favor of the Tagbanua ICC to
develop, control, manage, and utilize Calauit does not affect the propriety or impropriety of the
execution of the Resettlement Agreements per se, the same, however, gainsays the avowed
consequence of said contracts, that is, to remove and transfer the settlers from Calauit to the
resettlement areas.
HALILI V. COURT OF APPEALS
(G.R. No. 113539, March 12, 1998)
FACTS:
Simeon de Guzman, an American citizen, died sometime in 1968, leaving real
properties in the Philippines. His forced heirs were his widow private respondent Helen
Meyers Guzman, and his son, private respondent David Rey Guzman, both of whom
are also American citizens. On August 9, 1989, Helen executed a deed of quitclaim,
assigning, transferring, and conveying to David Rey all her rights, titles and interests in
and over six parcels of land which the two of them inherited from Simeon.
Among the said parcels of land is that now in litigation Guzman then sold the
parcel of land to Catanaig, who is one of respondents in this case. Petitioners, who are
owners of the adjoining lot, filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court of Malolos,
Bulacan, questioning the constitutionality and validity of the two conveyances —
between Helen Guzman and David Rey Guzman, and between the latter and Emiliano
Cataniag — and claiming ownership thereto based on their right of legal redemption
under Art. 1621 of the Civil Code. The trial court dismissed the complaint. The CA
denied the appeal of the Halilis.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the sale of the land is null and void.
HELD:
No, because the prohibition in the constitution has already been served. Article
XII, Section 7 provides that non-Filipinos cannot acquire or hold title to private lands or
to lands of the public domain, In fine, non-Filipinos cannot acquire or hold title to private
lands or to lands of the public domain, except only by way of legal succession. While it
is true that the transfer of Helen of his right to her son who is an American citizen
contradicts the prohibition set forth in the Constitution, the Supreme Court upheld the
subsequent sale of the land to Catanig, a Filipino citizen. Jurisprudence is consistent
that “if land is invalidly transferred to an alien who subsequently becomes a citizen or
transfers it to a citizen, the flaw in the original transaction is considered cured and the
title of the transferee is rendered valid.”
The rationale of this principle was explained in Vasquez vs. Li Seng Giap thus
“[I]f the ban on aliens from acquiring not only agricultural but also urban lands, as
construed by this Court in the Krivenko case, is to preserve the nation’s lands for future
generations of Filipinos, that aim or purpose would not be thwarted but achieved by
making lawful the acquisition of real estate by aliens who became Filipino citizens by
naturalization. “
Petition was denied.
REPUBLIC V. LIM
(G.R. 161656, June 29, 2005)
FACTS:
On September 5, 1938, the Republic of the Philippines (Republic) instituted a special civil
action for expropriation with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cebu, involving Lots of the
Banilad Friar Land Estate, Lahug, Cebu City, for the purpose of establishing a military reservation
for the Philippine Army. After depositing ₱9,500.00 with the Philippine National Bank, the
Republic took possession of the lots. Thereafter, the CFI rendered its Decision ordering the
Republic to pay the Denzons the sum of ₱4,062.10 as just compensation. In 1950, Jose Galeos,
one of the heirs of the Denzons, filed with the National Airports Corporation a claim for rentals for
the two lots, but it “denied knowledge of the matter.” Another heir, Nestor Belocura, brought the
claim to the Office of then President Carlos Garcia who wrote the Civil Aeronautics Administration
and the Secretary of National Defense to expedite action on said claim. in 1962, the CFI
promulgated its Decision in favor of Valdehueza and Panerio, holding that they are the owners
and have retained their right as such over Lots 932 and 939 because of the Republic’s failure to
pay the amount of ₱4,062.10, adjudged in the expropriation proceedings. In view of “the
differences in money value from 1940 up to the present,” the court adjusted the market value at
₱16,248.40, to be paid with 6% interest per annum from April 5, 1948, date of entry in the
expropriation proceedings, until full payment.
Meanwhile, in 1964, Valdehueza and Panerio mortgaged and foreclosed Lot 932 to Vicente
Lim for failure to pay. in 1992, respondent filed a complaint for quieting of title with the (RTC)
seeking an absolute and exclusive possession of the property. in 2001, the RTC rendered a
decision in favor of respondent. Petitioners elevated the case to the CA but the Ruling of the RTC
was upheld and affirmed.
ISSUE:
Whether the owner of the expropriated land is entitled for the repossession of his property
when party condemning refuses to pay the compensation which has been assessed or agreed
upon?
HELD:
Yes, while the prevailing doctrine is that “the non-payment of just compensation does not
entitle the private landowner to recover possession of the expropriated lots, however, in cases
where the government failed to pay just compensation within five (5) years from the finality of
the judgment in the expropriation proceedings, the owners concerned shall have the right to
recover possession of their property. This is in consonance with the principle that “the
government cannot keep the property and dishonor the judgment.” To be sure, the five-year
period limitation will encourage the government to pay just compensation punctually. This is in
keeping with justice and equity. After all, it is the duty of the government, whenever it takes
property from private persons against their will, to facilitate the payment of just compensation
which the court defined as not only the correct determination of the amount to be paid to the
property owner but also the payment of the property within a reasonable time. Without prompt
payment, compensation cannot be considered “just.”
