SC: Baguio City exempted from ancestral claims under IPRA

Manila, Philippines – The Supreme Court (SC) upheld its decision that exempted Baguio City from ancestral land claims under the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) or Republic Act No. 8371.

In its ruling promulgated on July 30, 2024, the High Court denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) and the heirs of Joan Gorio and Lauro Carantes, saying it “found no compelling reason to overturn” since the “issues raised… have already been duly considered and passed upon by the court in its assailed decision.”

The decision penned by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen and was announced on Friday, December 20, said that “it bears stressing that Baguio City is exempted from the coverage of IPRA except for native title, that is, ownership since time immemorial where the indigenous peoples are in open, continuous, and actual possession of the land up to the present.”

The NCIP and the Carantes heirs challenged a July 2023 decision by the SC which ruled that land rights within Baguio City are not covered by IPRA but instead are determined by its own charter. The court cited Section 78 of the law which stated that the city “shall remain to be governed by its charter and all lands proclaimed as part of its town site reservation shall remain as such until otherwise reclassified by appropriate legislation.” 

The case stemmed from an ancestral claim filed by Carantes heirs in 1990 before the the Department of Environment and Natural Resources over five parcels of land in Baguio City. The family allegedly belonged to the indigenous Ibaloi community but were forced out of their land in 1924. 

After IPRA took effect in 1998, the claim was then transferred to the NCIP which eventually issued certificates of ancestral land titles in 2008 or almost 10 years after IPRA took effect. The Office of the Solicitor General, however, opposed the ruling citing the IPRA provision that stated the exception of Baguio City from the law so the NCIP “had no power” to issue these certificates.  The OSG went to the SC after the Court of Appeals sided with the heirs and NCIP. 

The July 2023 SC decision said that the Carantes heirs failed to prove that their ancestors traditionally occupied and continued to occupy the land since time immemorial given that the claimed ancestral lands are presently occupied “by other individuals with vested property rights.” This condition is different from those laid out under IPRA.

“It is important to note that 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 SC said in its latest ruling.

The High Court also emphasized that the application for the title “is not through the IPRA but through the usual land titling process.” – Rappler.com