MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that ancestral land claims in Baguio City must be supported by evidence of continuous and actual possession by indigenous peoples up to the present time.
In a seven-page resolution promulgated on July 30, 2024, penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the high court affirmed its 2023 ruling that Baguio City is exempt from ancestral land claims under the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA).
The SC denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) and the heirs of Joan Gorio and Lauro Carantes.
What happened before
The case dates back to 1990, when the Carantes heirs filed ancestral land claims over parcels of land in Baguio City, asserting their identity as members of the Ibaloi indigenous community.
When the IPRA was enacted in 1997, the NCIP assumed jurisdiction over these claims and, in 2008, granted Certificates of Ancestral Land Titles to the heirs.
The NCIP maintained that ancestral rights to the land were valid even though the area was part of the Baguio Townsite Reservation, proclaimed as a government reservation in 1907.
However, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) opposed the Commission’s decision, arguing that the IPRA does not apply to Baguio City and that the Commission lacked the authority to issue the titles.
The Court of Appeals initially ruled in favor of the NCIP and the Carantes heirs, but the OSG elevated the case to the (SC)
SC's decision
In its July 2023 ruling, the high court clarified that Baguio City is exempt from the IPRA due to its status as a Townsite Reservation, governed by its charter. The SC emphasized that the IPRA does not supersede earlier government proclamations regarding property rights.
Despite this exemption, the Supreme Court noted that Indigenous peoples may still establish land ownership through proof of continuous and actual possession since time immemorial. However, this process falls outside the scope of the IPRA and must be pursued through standard land titling mechanisms.
“What is needed for a claim of native title to prevail is proof that the indigenous peoples are in open, continuous, and actual possession of the land up to the present. The source of the right is a vested property right. Therefore, the application for the title is not through the IPRA but through the usual land titling process,” the SC’s ruling read.
“Clearly in this case, the heirs of Carantes are not currently in actual possession of the claimed ancestral lands given that it has been occupied by other individuals with vested property rights, such as Camp John Hay, Baguio Country Club and Baguio Water District,” the high court added.