The Regalian Doctrine

The Regalian Doctrine

The Regalian Doctrine, also known as “jura regalia”, is a fiction of Spanish colonial law that has been said to apply to all Spanish colonial holdings. More specifically, the Regalian Doctrine refers to the feudal principle that private title to land must emanate, directly or indirectly, from the Spanish crown with the latter retaining the underlying title. Lands and resources not granted by the Crown remain part of the public domain over which none but the sovereign holds rights. Generally, under this concept, private title to land must be traced to some grant, express or implied, from the Spanish Crown or its successors, the American Colonial Government, and thereafter, the Philippine Republic. In a broad sense, the term refers to royal rights, or those rights to which the King has by virtue of his prerogatives.

Based on the Laws of the Indies, the capacity of the State to own or acquire property is the state's power of dominium, as cited in the Cruz v. DENR case. This was the foundation for the early Spanish decrees embracing the feudal theory of jura regalia. The "Regalian Doctrine" or jura regaliais a Western legal concept that was first introduced by the Spaniards into the country through the Laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas. The Laws of the Indies, i.e., more specifically, Law 14, Title 12, Book 4 of the Novisima Recopilacion de Leyes de las Indias, set the policy of the Spanish Crown with respect to the Philippine Islands in the following manner: "We, having acquired full sovereignty over the Indies, and all lands, territories, and possessions not heretofore ceded away by our royal predecessors, or by us, or in our name, still pertaining to the royal crown and patrimony, it is our will that all lands which are held without proper and true deeds of grant be restored to us as they belong to us, in order that after reserving before all what to us or to our viceroys, audiencias, and governors may seem necessary for public squares, ways, pastures, and commons in those places which are peopled, taking into consideration not only their present condition, but also their future and their probable increase, and after distributing to the natives what may be necessary for tillage and pasturage, confirming them in what they now have and giving them more if necessary, all the rest of said lands may remain free and unencumbered for us to dispose of as we may wish.”

The Philippines passed to Spain by virtue of "discovery" and conquest. Consequently, all lands became the exclusive patrimony and dominion of the Spanish Crown. The Spanish Government took charge of distributing the lands by issuing royal grants and concessions to Spaniards, both military and civilian. Private land titles could only be acquired from the government either by purchase or by the various modes of land grant from the Crown (Cruz v. DENR).

The Regalian Doctrine dictates that all lands of the public domain belong to the State, that the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land and charged with the conservation of such patrimony. The doctrine has been consistently adopted under the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions. All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Thus, all lands that have not been acquired from the government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to the State as part of the inalienable public domain. Necessarily, it is up to the State to determine if lands of the public domain will be disposed of for private ownership. The government, as the agent of the state, is possessed of the plenary power as the persona in law to determine who shall be the favored recipients of public lands, as well as under what terms they may be granted such privilege, not excluding the placing of obstacles in the way of their exercise of what otherwise would be ordinary acts of ownership.

For an extended discussion of the Regalian Doctrine, read the article titled The Regalian Doctrine as Embodied in the Philippine Constitution.

Republic Act No. 8371—The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997

R.A. No. 8371—The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997

Republic Act (RA) No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997, has been around for almost fifteen years to recognize and protect the rights of the Indigenous People of the Philippines. More specifically, RA No. 8371 is an act to recognize, protect, and promote the rights of indigenous cultural communities/indigenous people, creating a national commission of indigenous people, establishing implementing mechanisms, appropriating funds therefor, and for other purposes. In simple words, the said Act provides indigenous peoples (IPs) the right to their ancestral domains and lands.

Indigenous peoples share distinctive traits that set them apart from the Filipino mainstream. While the mainstream Filipinos are Christians, the indigenous people are the non-Christians. Accordingly, the IPs “live in less accessible, marginal, mostly upland areas. They have a system of self-government not dependent upon the laws of the central administration of the Republic of the Philippines. They follow ways of life and customs that are perceived as different from those of the rest of the population” (Cruz v. DENR).

Ancestral domains, based on the definition provided in RA No. 8371, transcend physical and residential territories to include areas of spiritual, cultural and traditional practices. Ancestral domains, as defined in the IPRA, “refer to all areas generally belonging to [Indigenous Cultural Communities] ICCs/IPs comprising lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and natural resources therein, held under a claim of ownership, occupied or possessed by ICCs/IPs, by themselves or through their ancestors, communally or individually since time immemorial, continuously to the present except when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of government projects or any other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private individuals/corporations, and which are necessary to ensure their economic, social and cultural welfare. It shall include ancestral lands, forests, pasture, residential, agricultural and other lands individually owned whether alienable and disposable or otherwise, hunting grounds, burial grounds, worship areas, bodies of water, mineral and other natural resources, and lands which may no longer be exclusively occupied by ICCs/IPs but from which they traditionally had access to for their subsistence and traditional activities, particularly the home ranges of ICCs/IPs who are still nomadic and/or shifting cultivators.”

Ancestral lands, which are part of ancestral domains, are defined in RA No. 8371 as lands “occupied, possessed and utilized by individuals, families and clans who are members of the ICCs/IPs since time immemorial, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, under claims of individual or traditional group ownership, continuously, to the present except when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of government projects and other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private individuals/corporations, including, but not limited to, residential lots, rice terraces or paddies, private forests, swidden farms and tree lots.”

RA No. 8371 provides IPs’ the rights to ancestral domains, which include the right of ownership, right to develop lands and natural resources, right to stay in the territories, right in case of displacement (temporary or permanent resettlement and right to return), right to regulate entry of migrants, right to safe and clean air and water, right to claim parts of reservations (except those intended for common public welfare and service) and the right to resolve conflict. For ancestral lands, in particular, IPs have the right to transfer land/property rights to/among members of the same ICCs/IPs and the right to redeem the property in case of transfers that raise questions on consent given by IPs and transfers made with unjust considerations and/or prices.

IPs in the Philippines can claim ownership of their ancestral domains in three different ways, which include the following—(1) by virtue of a native title, getting formal recognition of ownership by acquiring a certificate of ancestral domain title (CADT); (2) certificate of ancestral land title (CALT) from the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)-Ancestral Domains Office (ADO); or (3) by securing a certificate of title by virtue of “Commonwealth Act 141, as amended, or the Land Registration Act 496. A native title, according to RA No. 8371, “refers to pre-conquest rights to land and domains, which, as far back as memory reaches, have been held under a claim of private ownership by ICCs/IPs, have never been public lands and are thus indisputably presumed to have been held that way since before the Spanish Conquest.” A CALT or CADT, on the other hand, is granted by the government and is provided for by law to those IPs who wish to obtain these titles. The IPRA, specifically Section 12, also states that IPs have the option to acquire certificates of title under the provisions of the amended Commonwealth Act No. 141. This Act follows the Torrens System of land registration and titles issued under this system are called Torrens titles.