DISPLACEMENT OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND LAND CONFLICTS IN BAGUIO CITY: LEGAL CALAMITIES DESCENDED FROM CIVIL RESERVATION CASE NO. 1

DISPLACEMENT OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND LAND

CONFLICTS IN BAGUIO CITY: LEGAL CALAMITIES

DESCENDED FROM CIVIL RESERVATION CASE NO. 11

By Cheryl L. Daytec-Yañgot2

Introduction

No bloodshed. Just a white piece of paper,

a work of prose and poetry,

liberally garnished with fustian doubled-edged

promises of justice and common good

synonymous -although not palpably- to exploitation,

iniquity and cultural extinction

Flowed, it did, mightily from the pens of the

leviathans in the stage where reason played second

fiddle to self-interest. It bore the mark of the titanic figure

in the titanic swivel chair in the titanic house they call the

seat of power near a river on the verge of death .

There was no bloodshed. Just a piece of paper.

While the law is a surrogate for brutality,

There need not be bloodshed.

-from Brute Force on Paper3

It is only in the City of Baguio where certificates of land titles declared

void ab initio by the courts were validated. A “validated void act” is a strange

legal creature. If an act is null and void ab initio, it is inefficacious, creates

no force and effect and cannot be the subject of validation. It is like the dead

incapable of emitting its own specter.

This strange legal creature’s genes were conceived during the

American colonial rule in the womb of Civil Reservation Case No. 1, GLRO

Record No. 211 which called on the indigenous people in Baguio to submit

their lands to the operation of the Torrens system. Although it impressed

some land rights with the character of indefeasibility even against the

government whose policies put them in a precarious balance, it negated

native titles when large tracts of ancestral lands were decreed as townsite or

government reservations exempt from private claims. Instead of quieting

titles, the case put them in rocky waters. In some cases, it obliterated them.

1 Paper presented in the University of the Philippines, Baguio City during the Baguio Centennial Conference, 6-7 March 2009. 2 The author is an Associate Professor of Saint Louis University, Baguio City and a Member of the Board of Trustees of the Cordillera Indigenous Peoples Legal Center. A human rights lawyer, she is a founding member of the National Union of Peoples‟ Lawyers and the Asian Network of Indigenous Lawyers. 3 Written by this paper‟s author.

2

2

Between 1953 to 1968, the case was reopened. Several holders of

native titles submitted their claims for registration to the Court of First

Instance of Baguio and Benguet sitting as a land registration court. A total of

1500 hectares, more or less, was brought under the operation of the Torrens

system as a result.

However, the Supreme Court nullified the titles finding that the court

that decreed them acted beyond jurisdiction. This was a setback in the

protracted struggle of Baguio’s first people for State recognition of their land

rights. But there was a flash of hope when Presidential Decree No. 1271 was

passed allowing the validation of the invalidated titles.

There is a very pronounced absence of literature on this law. Articles

on the land problems in Baguio rarely mention it. This is surprising because

although it was intended to be curative, it fathered so many land conflicts

which persist to this day exacerbating the existing tangles in the land issues.

And even if it is a strange legal creature, it has not caught the attention of legal

luminaries enough for them to devote a page to it in their books or

publications on land issues.

This paper critically dissects PD 1271, its double-edged nature and the

issues and concerns that its passage generated.

History of the Passage of PD 1271

An understanding of PD 1271 and its two cutting edges cannot be

achieved without going back to the womb from which its bloodline

originated, and to the social and political milieu which fertilized this womb. It

is therefore imperative to revisit Baguio’s legal metamorphosis from a small

Ibaloi4 community to a colonial townsite.

The Establishment of Baguio as a Townsite

It can be said that the complicated Baguio land problem is rooted in

the use of the legal system to take the place of brute force in the displacement

of indigenous peoples from their ancestral territories, a case of resorting to

hegemony through the use of a dominant ideology instead of military and

police force, to conceal oppression of the masses (Gramsci 1992) or to give it

a semblance of legitimacy.

After the Philippine American Revolution in 1899, the American colonial

rule established a military government in the Philippine archipelago

claiming that it was the white man’s manifest destiny to civilize the colonized.5

All over the archipelago, it "granted private land titles to large owners,

placed all undeclared land under state ownership, opened such land to

exploration, occupation and purchase by citizens of the United States and the

Philippines" (Swenson 1987: 200) through various legislative acts including

4 The Ibalois are indigenous people of Baguio. 5 In his decision to annex the Philippines, US President William McKinley was quoted to have said: "There was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them...."

3

3

Act No. 496 commonly known as the Land Registration Act of 1902 which

governed the registration of lands under the Torrens system.6

In 1901, the American rule set up the Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes

(Barnes, Gray and Kingsbury 1995) to incorporate the indigenous peoples,

then called non-Christian tribes, into the formal polity (Chaffee 1969). The

legal subjugation thus having been consummated, the colonial regime

imposed on them the Regalian Doctrine.7

Americans first arrived in Baguio then known as Kafagway8 in 1900 and

immediately fell in love with the cool, temperate climate. Notwithstanding the

presence of “non-Christians”, to use the colonial label, the Philippine

Commission9 decreed its intention in Act No. 636 of 11 February 1903 to

convert Baguio into a townsite, and expropriated lands owned through native

title by indigenous people for government purpose, exempt from settlement

and claim “until the same shall be opened up for sale and settlement” (Reed

1997). This act disturbed the native titles of the inhabitants. In fact, under this

law, the Ibaloi hero Mateo Carino was expelled from his own house10 even if

as early as 1901, he filed a petition to register his ownership under the

mortgage law.11

On 1 June 1903, the colonial government through a Resolution of the

Philippine Commission declared Baguio the summer capital of the

Philippines. It embarked on aggressive erection of government

infrastructures. On what is now known as Camp John Hay, it constructed

buildings to serve as the abode of bureaucrats of the military government

seeking respite from the lowland heat during the summer.

In 1906, Carino’s application was denied by the Philippine Supreme

Court since his land was already taken possession of by the insular

government for public and military purposes under Act. No. 636, and

6 This was amended by Presidential Decree 1529 enacted on 11 June 1978. 7 This is the feudal theory of jura regalia under which Spanish colonizers declared all lands in the conquered territories as belonging to the crown of Spain resulting in the massive deprivation of the natives‟ right to their ancestral territories. The personality of the crown would be taken over by the State. 8 This was the original name of Baguio. It evolved into Bag-iw because the places abounded with “bag-iw,” a moss. The Americans change Bag-iw to Baguio. 9 A body appointed by US President William McKinley to exercise legislative and limited executive powers in the Philippines. From 1907, the all-American body acted as the upper house of the bicameral Philippine legislature, with the elected Philippine Assembly acting as lower house. The Philippine Senate replaced it upon the passage of the Jones Law. 10 Act 636 provides: Section 1. Pending the plotting of the a town site at Baguio and the setting aside of a tract of land as a military reservation, the following described tract of land shall be reserved for Government purposes, exempt from settlement and claim: That parcel or tract of land in the form of a circle with its center in the house occupied by Mateo Carino, and with a radius of one kilometer; SECTION 2. It shall be the duty of the governor of the Province of Benguet to prevent any person from settling on public lands within the area described in section one of this Act until the same shall be opened up to sale and settlement by subsequent legislation. 11 Carino v. Insular Government, 212 US 449 (1909)

4

4

therefore exempt from resettlement and claim.12 Undaunted, the Ibaloi elder

elevated the matter to the US Supreme Court.

That same year, in 1906, Executive Order (EO) 3713 created the Baguio

Townsite. The colonial regime started selling lands in the townsite

reservation to interested civilians by way of townsite sales. (Boquiren 2008).

Among the buyers were Americans, other foreigners, the ilustrados of

Philippine society, and surprisingly, Mateo Carino himself (Carino 2008).14

The Carino Doctrine

In January 1909, the US Supreme Court handed down its decision in the

Carino case reversing the Philippine Supreme Court. It decreed that

ancestral lands and domains were never part of the public domain or were

never subject to state ownership for the simple reason that these lands

remained with the unconquered indigenous peoples.15 This came to be

known as the Carino Doctrine honored more in the breach than in the

observance in this jurisdiction, but it is invoked as a legal leg by indigenous

peoples all over the world to support their struggle for land rights.16

That same year or on 1 September 1909, Act No. 19644 or the Baguio

City Charter came into effect17 further entrenching Baguio’s townsite status.

In an act that further emasculated the ancestral land rights of the

indigenous Ibalois, the Director of Lands, on 12 April 1912, filed before the

Land Registration Court Civil Reservation Case No. 1, GLRO Record No. 211.

In 1914 upon the abolition of the Land Registration Court, the case was

transferred to the Court of First Instance of Benguet.18 In this case, the Carino

Doctrine failed to shelter indigenous territories from State incursion. The

12 Carino v. Insular Government, 7 Phil 132 (1906) 13On 23 September 1907, Gov. W. Cameron Forbes issued Executive Order No. 8 Revoking Executive No. 37. It said: “In view of the confusion existing in the boundaries of the reservation first temporarily made by Act of the Commission Numbered Six hundred and thirty-six in the present city of Baguio, subprovince of Benguet, Mountain Province, and subsequently enlarge and changed into Baguio town-site reservation, and in view of existing conflicts between the boundaries of the said town-site reservation and those of the military reservation commonly known as Camp John Hay, and in view of the desirability of removing all existing obstacles to a definite determination of the boundaries of the said reservation and the town site of Baguio, Executive Order Numbered Thirty-seven, dated the twenty-third day of September, nineteen hundred and seven, of the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands is hereby revoked. 14In the Index of Lots Sold on September 1910 obtained by the Heirs of Mateo Carino and Bayosa Ortega Foundation , Mateo Carino‟s name appears as a buyer of a lot by virtue of a townsite sales. All the listed buyers were Americans, other foreigners and members of the Philippine elite. 15 Carino vs. Insular Government, supra. 16 Although the Carino Doctrine is legislated in the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act, it is subordinate to the Regalian Doctrine pursuant to the ruling in Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources ( G.R. No. 135385, December 6, 2000) 17 According to the website of the Republic of the Philippines, this was Act No. 19644. 18 Republic vs. Fangonil, et al., G.R. No. L-57112 November 29, 1984.

5

5

colonial rule and subsequent administrations issued one act after another

expanding the coverage of government reservations.19

Civil Reservation Case No. 1: An Uncivil Case

Essentially, Civ. Res. Case No. 1 was a systematic erosion of ancestral

land rights. It called for the compulsory settlement and adjudication of claims

to private lands within the Baguio Townsite Reservation, pursuant to Act No.

92620, and Act No. 627.21 All State pronouncements aver that the purpose of

Civ. Res. Case No. 211 was to determine once and for all what portions of the

Baguio Townsite Reservation were private and registrable under Act No. 49622

as provided in section 62 of Act No. 926.

In reality, it was a way to legalize disenfranchisement than to quiet

titles, for before the colonial rule, the native titles have always been “quiet.”

In principle, the Torrens system of land registration institutionalized

under Act 496 provides protection to land owners. It guarantees the

absoluteness, indefeasibility and imprescriptibility of lands registered under

it. Rights acquired under this system are protected by the government which

provides an assurance fund to answer for damages suffered by persons

under its operation. (Noblejas 1992). And yet, when it ignores the concept of

native titles, it does not serve as a protection. It becomes a system of

oppression when only certain ancestral lands are brought under its operation

while the rest are rejected as what happened in Civ. Res. Case No. 1, a clever

ploy to legitimize land seizure committed by the State against the virtually

unprotected, validating Marx’s view of the legal system as a tool for

exploitation by the dominant of the weak.

19 For instance, on 19 June 1929, then US President Herbert Hoover issued an executive order declaring to be a naval reservation of the Government of the United States 'that tract of land known as lot no. 141, residence Section D, Baguio naval reservation, heretofore reserved for naval purposes „ (Rep. v. Marcos, G.R. No. L-32941 July 31, 1973). 20The basis was Sec. 62 of Act 926. Sec. 62 states: “Whenever any lands in the Philippine Island are set apart as town sites, under the provisions of Chapter Five of this Act, it shall be lawful for the Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands, with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, to notify the judge of the Court of Land Registration that such lands have been reserved as a town site and that all private lands or interests therein within the limits described ought forthwith to be brought within the operation of the Land Registration Act, and to become registered land within the meaning of said Registration Act. It shall be the duty of the judge of said court to issue a notice thereof, stating that claims for all private lands or interests therein within the limits described must be presented for registration under the Land Registration Act in the manner provided in Act Numbered Six hundred and twenty-seven, entitled "An act to bring immediately under the operation of the Land Registration Act all lands lying within the boundaries lawfully set apart for military reservations, and all lands desired to be purchased by the Government of the United States for military purposes." The procedure for the purpose of this section and the legal effects thereof shall thereupon be in all respects as provided in sections three, four, five, and six of said Act Numbered Six hundred and twenty- seven.” 21 The establishment of military reservations is governed by Act No. 627 of the Philippine Commission and section 1 of that Act provides that "all lands or buildings, or any interest therein, within the Philippine Islands, or any interest therein, within the boundaries of the areas now or hereafter set apart and declared to be military reservations shall be forthwith brought under the operations of the Land Registration Act . . . ." 22 Land Registration Act

6

6

The Ibalois were positioned between the devil and the deep blue sea.

On the one hand, the filing of their claims would be construed, in effect, as a

recognition of legitimacy of the colonial rule’s system of land disposition

which was alien to their customary laws. It would have been tantamount to

“the acceptance by the ruled of a conception of the world which belongs to

the rulers (Carnoy 1984)” or a case of hegemony that involves “the

ideological predominance of the dominant classes in civil society over the

subordinate (Gramsci 1992).” On the other, their refusal to subject their

claims for adjudication by the colonial masters could result in the forfeiture of

their rights. Either way, they were standing on quick sand.

On 22 July 1915, the Court of First Instance of Benguet issued a notice

requiring all persons claiming lots inside the reservation to file within six

months from the date of the notice petitions for the registration of their titles

under Act No. 496. According to a certification issued by the Clerk of Court,

134 persons living upon or in visible possession of any part of the reservation

were personally served with notice of the reservation case.23 This notice

advised them to submit their claims for adjudication as private properties and

for exclusion from the townsite reservation. And so hapless Ibalois were

forced to queue up before the door of the American regime for their bite of

social goods which they actually owned! It was a case of choice deprivation,

forcing them to opt to dance with the devil than to drown in the deep, blue

sea.

On 13 November 1922, the Court of First Instance of Benguet presided

over by Judge C.M. Villareal rendered a decision in the reservation case

decreeing all lands within the Baguio Townsite Reservation as public lands.

Spared from becoming part of the reservation were a) those areas inside

established reservations and b) the lands claimed by and adjudicated to

private claimants. Some Ibaloi claims were denied because they fell within

the military reservation or the public land made part of the townsite,24 a direct

affront to Carino Doctrine.

The same decision barred forever all future private claims not

pursued in said proceedings. This was based on Act. No. 627 which provided

that once the private and public lands were determined, no further

registration proceeding would be allowed.25

The only case of registration successfully pursued after the decision

was Zarate vs. Director of Lands.26 It involved the Zarate brothers who failed

to submit their claims for adjudication in the civil reservation case. In 1930

and 1931 or more than eight years after the termination of the case, they filed

23 Zarate vs. Director of Lands, 58 Phil 156 24 Kiang(one name) filed his claim under Case No. 30, G.L.R.O. Record No. 12073. But the claim was dismissed in Civ. Res. Case No. 1 because accordingly, his claim was public land and could not be adjudicated as a private property. His heirs succeeded in having the land titled under Act No. 496 upon the passage of RA 936 by way of reopening of the reservation case. Unfortunately, the title was nullified in 1988 in the case Republic v. Sangalang et al., (G.R. No. L-58822 April 8, 1988) because according to the court, the court had no jurisdiction to reopen the reservation case. In this latter case, it was acknowledged that Kiang‟s predecessors possessed the land even during the Spanish occupation. 25 Secs. 3 and 4 26 58 Phil 156

7

7

their claims. Justifying its favorable decision, the Supreme Court said that the

belated applications were regarded exceptional “because the applicants

were able to prove that in 1915 they were in visible occupation of their lots

and the clerk of court did not serve personal notice upon them.”27

Zarate did not establish a precedent as subsequent similar attempts28

for registration were dismissed with the Supreme Court baptizing it “an

isolated case.” In one latter decision, the Supreme Court even waxed poetic

when it said: “For time is a means of destroying obligations and actions,

because time runs against the slothful and contemners of their own rights."29

In reality, Civ. Res. Case No. 1 became a mighty fortress keeping

indigenous people off their ancestral lands. As its upshot, the only mode of

disposition of lands classified as public in Baguio is a townsite sale. Which

meant the Ibalois who failed to register their claims in the reservation case

would have to participate in a public bidding to buy their own ancestral lands!

With the passage of CA 141 or the Public Land Act, townsites were brought

under its operation.30

Reopening A Closed Case

27 Republic vs. Fangonil, et al., G.R. No. L-57112 November 29, 1984. 28 Between 1970 and 1976, Ibalois Modesta Paris, Lagya Paris, Samuel Baliwan, Pablo Ramos, Josephine Abanag, Menita T. Victor, Emiliano Bautista and Odi Dianson filed with the Court of First Instance of Baguio applications for the registration of wide tracts of lands inside the Baguio Townsite Reservation. Claiming these lands to be their ancestral lands, they sought to register the same under Act No. 496 or the Land Registration Act. They invoked the ruling in Zarate v. Director Lands where claimant were allowed to pursue their claim eight years after the decision in the reservation case because they were able to satisfy the court that was they were not personally served a notice of reservation as required by Act 627. The petitioners all claimed that like the claimants in Zarate, they or their predecessors-in-interest were not notified of the reservation and thus were not aware that they had to submit their claims for adjudication as private properties. Judge Fangonil allowed them to present evidence that they or their predecessors in interest did not receive notice of reservation in Civil Reservation Case No.1. According to the Supreme Court, the record of Civil Reservation Case No. 211 ”was completely destroyed during the last war” and there was no way of validating the petitioners‟ claim.” Furthermore, the Supreme Court said, (t)he period of more than fifty years completely bars the applicants from securing relief due to the alleged lack of personal notice to their predecessors. The law helps the vigilant but not those who sleep on their rights. (Republic v. Fangonil, supra.) See also Gumangan, et alis vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 75672, April 19, 1989 29 Ibid. 30Any alienable and disposable public land is open for townsite sales application. The maximum that a person may apply for is 1,000 square meters. Aside from TSA, a person may file a miscellaneous sales application. A MSA involves only a land covered by presidential proclamations by the national government. Unlike a townsite sale which is done through public bidding, a miscellaneous sale is usually a direct sale to the applicant.

8

8

In 1953, the State enacted Republic Act No. 93131 which authorized the

reopening of cadastral cases with respect to lands previously declared public

by the court.

Some original Baguio settlers grabbed this as an opportunity to

petition government to recognize their claims to their ancestral lands either

attached to the Baguio townsite reservation or given the character as forests

or military reservations under Civil Reservation Case No. 1. Invoking

Republic Act No. 931, they filed petitions before the Court of First Instance of

Baguio and Benguet to reopen the reservation case. The said court presided

over by Judge Pio Marcos reopened it and adjudicated in their favor several

parcels of land situated within the Baguio Townsite Reservation under Act No.

496 or the Land Registration Act. From 1953 to 1968 a total of more or less

1150 hectares of land in the Baguio townsite reservation were registered

under Act No. 496.32 The titles obtained under this process would soon be

popularly called “211 titles.”

But the jurisdiction of the CFI to order the registration of lands in

Baguio was subsequently challenged by the State in two cases. In 1969, the

Supreme Court in Republic, et al. v. Hon. Pio R. Marcos, et al.33 declared all

titles issued under RA 931 null and void. According to the court of last resort,

Republic Act 931 was applicable only to places that were covered by

cadastral proceedings, not to the City of Baguio which was decreed as a

townsite reservation even before the enactment of Cadastral Act No. 2259 on

11 February 1913.

Four years later, the Supreme Court reiterated its ruling in Republic v.

Marcos.34 In the main, what the Supreme Court said in the two cases was that

since Baguio was converted into a townsite reservation, the registration of

lands may only be accomplished through townsite sales and not through

judicial confirmation of imperfect titles.

31 An Act to Authorize the Filing in the Proper Court, under Certain Conditions, of Certain Claims of Title to Parcels of Land that have been Declared Public by Virtue of Judicial Decisions rendered the Forty Years Next Preceding the Approval of this Act. The basis for the reopening was Section 1 which provides: “All persons claiming title to parcels of land that have been the object of cadastral proceedings, who at the time of the survey were in actual possession of the same, but for some justifiable reason had been unable to file their claim in the proper court during the time limit established by law, in case such parcels of land, on account of their failure to file such claims, have been, or are about to be declared land of the public domain, by virtue of judicial proceedings instituted within the forty year next preceding the approval of this Act, are hereby granted the right within five years after the date on which this Act shall take effect, to petition for a re-opening of the judicial proceedings under the provisions of Act Numbered Twenty-two hundred and fifty-nine, as amended, only with respect to such parcels of land as have not been alienated, reserved, leased, granted, or otherwise provisionally or permanently disposed of by the Government.” Under this law, the period for reopening cadastral proceedings expired on June 20, 1958. However, an amendatory law, Rep. Act No. 2061 was passed extending this period until December 31, 1968, after which there had been no further extension. 32 PD 1271 states in part: “(A)t the time the decision of the Supreme Court was promulgated large portions of the public domain, aggregating 11,478,098 square meters, more or less, had illegally been decreed in favor of private individuals.” 33 29 SCRA 517 (1969) 34 52 SCRA 238 (1973)

9

9

In Camdas vs. Director of Lands,35 the Supreme Court stressed that the

Baguio Court of First Instance was devoid of jurisdiction to entertain any land

registration proceeding under Act No. 496 and the Public Land Law, covering

any lot within the Baguio Townsite Reservation which was terminated in 1922.

The ruling was subsequently reiterated in Republic v Sangalang36 where the

Supreme Court stated that all those lands that were not adjudicated as private

properties under Civil Reservation Case No. 1 were public land and that the

registration proceedings under Judge Marcos were all null and void for want

of jurisdiction.

PD 1271: Invalidating 211 Titles,

Validating Void Titles

In the aftermath of the Republic versus Marcos cases, the hodgepodge

in the land problems was compounded as multiple claims overlapped and the

ownership loops became more difficult to unknot.

. Many of the original title holders- indigenous peoples who asserted

ownership of the lands by native title but were forced to submit them to the

operation of the Torrens system for the protection of their rights from a State

that had systematically made them squatters on their own lands- introduced

substantial improvement on the lands.

As it metamorphosed into a commercial center, Baguio became a

multi-ethnic convergence area (Brett1990). The former colonial hill station

originally built for 25,000 people37 attracted settlers from within and without

the Cordillera Region in search of its economic promises. Many Ibaloi lands

were divided into parcels and the parcels transferred to migrants in

legitimate transactions. These people stood to lose a lot as a consequence of

the Marcos cases.

On 22 December 1977, President Ferdinand Marcos emerged as their

apparent messiah as he issued Presidential Decree No. 1271.38 He legislated

the decisions in the Marcos cases nullifying all titles issued under Act 496 as

a result of the reopening of Civ. Res. Case No.1. However, the law itself

provided for a mechanism to validate otherwise void titles. This is

phenomenal because if an act is congenitally flawed, it cannot be corrected.

But this apparent legal fluke had its good side. It was a welcome development

for many Ibalois who breathlessly waited for the recognition of their land

rights only to have their hopes cruelly dashed not once.

35 GR No. L-37782, March 8, 1974 36 G.R. No. L-58822 April 8, 1988 37 The official website of the Republic of the Philippines says: “Although the American's plan for the city's maximum residents was 25,000 people, the Philippine government was able to conserve and protect the city's environs even as Baguio‟s population has already swelled to almost half-a-million to date.” 38 PD 1271 is "An act nullifying decrees of registration and certificates of title covering lands within the Baguio Townsite Reservation Case No. 1, G.L.R.O. Record No. 211 pursuant to Republic Act No. 931, as amended, but considering as valid certain titles of such lands that are alienable and disposable under certain conditions and for other purposes."

10

10

PD 1271, subsequently amended thrice to extend the period for

validation application,39 took cognizance of the fact that at the time the

decision of the Supreme Court in the first Marcos case was promulgated,

“large portions of the public domain, aggregating 11,478,098 square meters,

more or less, were registered by judicial confirmation of imperfect title.”40 It

acknowledged that portions of these lands were conveyed to innocent third

parties who obtained transfer certificates of title and that holders, believing

in the genuineness of their titles, introduced substantial improvements on

their lots.

In that sense, PD 1271 had the appearance of a measure of equity to

protect these people. This was highlighted in the 1988 case of Republic

versus Sangalang,41 where the Supreme Court said that “PD 1271 was decreed

to protect title holders who before the promulgation of the Supreme Court

decision on July 31, 1973, had acted in good faith and relied, although

mistakenly, on the indefeasibility of Torrens certificates of titles and had

introduced substantial improvements on the land covered by said

certificates.”

Thus, PD 1271 as amended by PD 2034 provides that all certificates of

titles issued on or before July 31, 1973 “shall be considered valid” and the

lands covered by them shall be deemed to have been conveyed in fee simple

to the registered owners upon a showing of, and compliance with, the

following conditions:

a. The lands covered by the titles are not within any government,

public or quasi-public reservation, forest, military or otherwise, as

certified by appropriate agencies;

b. Payment in full upon the filing of the application by the present title

holder to the Republic of the Philippines of an amount equivalent to

fifteen per centum (1 5%) of the assessed value of the land whose title is

voided as of revision period 1973 (P.D. 76).42

But PD 1271 was now for the bureaucracy to implement. How it has so

far done it is best described in Lenin’s statement that the bureaucratic quality

of secrecy divorces government decisions from public service, made as they

were beyond the public view (Carino 1992 quoting Held 1973: 27)

39It was amended by PD No. 1311 and later by PD 1651 for the purpose of extending the period of validation. In 1986, Pres. Marcos issued PD 2034 requiring that payment of the 15% of the land be made upon application and extending the period for validation until 6 Februry 1987. 40 See PD 1271, "An act nullifying decrees of registration and certificates of title covering lands within the Baguio Townsite Reservation Case No. 1, G.L.R.O. Record No. 211 pursuant to Republic Act No. 931, as amended, but considering as valid certain titles of such lands that are alienable and disposable under certain conditions and for other purposes." 41 Supra. 42 Under the unamended PD 1271, the payment requirement was as follows: Payment by the present title holder to the Republic of the Philippines of an amount equivalent to fifteen per centum (1 5%) of the assessed value of the land whose title is voided as of revision period 1973 (P.D. 76), the amount payable as follows: Within ninety (90) days of the effectivity of this Decree, the holders of the titles affected shall manifest their desire to avail of the benefits of this provision and shall pay ten per centum (10%) of the above amount and the balance in two equal installments, the first installment to be paid within the first year of the effectivity of this Decree and the second installment within a year thereafter.

11

11

Issues and Concerns Surrounding PD 1217

PD 1271, just like the legal system of which it is a part, was a double-

edged sword.43 By excluding from validation government reservations, it was

an affirmation of the Regalian Doctrine which is the spirit behind the

legitimized State confiscation of ancestral lands and territories. But it was also

an instrument to quiet titles of individuals whose interests did not clash with

that of the State. As a social legislation, it came with a cost as it required

titleholders to pay for the lands they owned. In its aspect as a quieter of titles,

it also generated newer land conflicts and tensions primarily because the

very bureaucracy that implemented it detached it from its spirit of equity.

Multifarious problems resulted from the validation process.

Validation of Unimproved Lands

Under PD 1271, the validation is for the benefit of those “holders of

titles who before the promulgation of the decision of the Supreme Court on

July 31, 1973, had acted in good faith and relied although mistakenly on the

indefeasibility of the Torrens certificates of titles and who had introduced

substantial improvements on the lands covered by the certificates.”

Several applications for validation of title transferees were approved

notwithstanding the absence of improvements on the affected lands. In some

successful validation applications , applicants were candid to admit that they

introduced no improvements at all. In some other cases, the improvements

were introduced by the informal settlers and claimed by the applicants as

theirs. It appears that the DENR does not consider improvement a requisite for

validation.

On the other hand, there is a view that the requirement of substantial

improvements applies in a case where the applicant for validation is the

original title holder. Where the applicant for validation is a transferee, no such

improvement is required. The injustice that needs to be addressed in this

latter case is the mere act of buying what one believes to be a genuine title.

Acceptance of Applications That Failed to Comply

With Payment Requirement

In some cases, payments were made after the period for validation

application was closed. A case in point is the 192 titles now in the name of

Asia Pine Hills Subdivision over lands in Cypress Point, Irisan barangay.

Records of the Register of Deeds of Baguio and the DENR show that the

required payment of 15% of the assessed value were paid in 1994,44 seven

43 In a previous paper, I wrote that the Philippine Constitution is a double-edged sword in dealing with ancestral land rights because while it recognizes indigenous peoples‟ rights, it qualifies that the protection of these rights is “within the framework of national unity and development” as well as declares that the protection of ancestral IP territories are "subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national development policies and programs.” 44 Several validation resolutions issued by the Validation Committee state that the payments of the 15% of the assessed value of the subject land were made either in February 1994 or in November 1994.

12

12

years after the lapse of the period for validation application. This clearly goes

against PD 1271 as amended by PD 2034 which requires as condition sine qua

non for validation the payment of 15% of the assessed value of the land upon

application.

Validation of Lands Within Forest Lands

Indigenous peoples’ lands in some parts of Baguio were put within the

proposed Baguio Forest Reserve45 under Civ. Res. Case No. 1. Many of these

lands were subsequently registered but the titles were nullified in the Marcos

cases. Some titles –original and derivative- were confirmed in violation of

PD 1271 which allows validation where “the lands covered by the titles are not

within any government, public or quasi-public reservation, forest, military or

otherwise, as certified by appropriate agencies.” This provision in PD 1271

was an echo of the Regalian Doctrine consistent with several Supreme Court

pronouncements, such as in Villarico vs. Court of Appeals46 where it stressed

that land within an unclassified public forest is incapable of private

appropriation, and in Republic vs. Intermediate Appellate Court47 where it

pronounced that possession, however long, of lands within a forest reserve

does not convert them into private property, even if they were brought under

the operation of the Torrens system of land registration.

It is interesting that the State through the Solicitor General initiated

reversion proceedings affecting some titles to these lands.48 The Regional

Trial Court nullified the affected titles but the decision was elevated to the

Court of Appeals.

Should it be decided with finality that the lands within the Baguio Forest

Reserves are inalienable, it will disturb ownership and possessory rights and

can create tension between members of the oppressed class.49 The affected

land is a dense residential area and many residents will be vulnerable to

displacement as a forest is not alienable and disposable. Other land problems

will crop up. Some lands are still in the possession of the original claimants-

Ibalois who saw the reopening of Civ. Res. No. 1 as a chance to insulate their

45 Land Classification Map No. 1024 of the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA), the agency of the under the Department of Environment and Natural Resources responsible for providing the public with map-making services and acting as the central mapping agency, depository, and distribution facility of natural resources data in the form of maps, charts, texts, and statistics, reveals that several 211 titles to wide tracts of land are found within the Baguio Forest Reserve. 46 GR No. 105912, 29 June 1999 47 186 SCRA 88. See also Vano v. Government of the Philippine Islands, 41 Phil 161; Adorable vs. Director of Forestry, 107 Phil 401; Director of Forestry vs. Munos, 132 Phil 637; Republic vs dela Cruz, 67 SCRA 648; Republic vs Animas, 56 SCRA 499; Republic vs Court of Appeals, 135 SCRA 156; and Director of Lands vs Rivas, 141 SCRA 329. 48 Republic of the Philippines through the Department of Environment and Natural Resources versus Erlinda Villanueva, et alis docketed as Civil Case No. 4735-R, decided by Branch 3 of the Regional Trial Court. 49Irisan Peoples Action Against Demolition and for Good Governance (IPADEGG), an organization of informal settlers in a part of Irisan which appears to be forest land stated in a position paper their call for the upholding of the Supreme Court decisions in the Marcos cases particularly the declaration of nullity of titles on lands declared as forests. They also stated that they will settle obligations only with the government and not with private individuals and claimants without qualification.

13

13

land rights from molestation in the hands of even the State. To judicially

construct their lands as forests is to return them to that period when they

were legally but unjustly excluded from the enjoyment of their rights by the

mere invocation of jura regalia.

There are also transferees in good faith whose interests will be greatly

prejudiced as many of them introduced substantial improvements on the

affected lands.

Squatters and squatting syndicates can take advantage of the decision

to disregard prior vested rights. There is nothing to stop squatting syndicates

from taking possession of the lands to the prejudice of bona fide claimants.

Many forest reserves in the city are now teeming with residential houses and

the government appears inutile in curbing the further reduction of the forests.

One good thing that will result however is that the big financial

interests dubiously claiming the lands as theirs will stop harassing the bona

fide settlers with demands to pay and demolition orders.

Acceptance of Applications of Non-Existent Persons

In some cases, the DENR local office has facilitated the application of

artificial persons that are legally dead. A legally dead person is like a dead

human being- it has no personality, ergo, devoid of rights and obligations.

At least in one case, the DENR local office indorsed the application of a

mortgagor which did not consolidate the title in its favor. Although it is a

singular case, it would have affected hundreds of urban poor families. The

case will be discussed hereunder.

Delay in Validation

Some applications filed within the validation period from 1977 to 1987

have been acted upon only in recent times by the DENR, or more than ten

years from filing. The very slow grind of the bureaucratic machinery has

damaged the interests of the title holders who could not fence, construct on or

introduce other vertical improvements to their lots while their applications

were awaiting government action. The City government does not issue

permits for fencing and building on unregistered lands, to which

unconfirmed 211 titles are classed.

There are still pending applications for validation in the DENR. These

applications were filed within the deadline . And yet even after 20 years, they

are still awaiting governmental action.

This delay has unduly prejudiced the legitimate claimants many of

whom lost the enjoyment of their properties to squatters who use the

argument that since the 211 titles are unconfirmed, the lands are public.

Delay in Annotation of Validation

In the many cases of the validated titles, the validation resolutions

remained with the DENR and not submitted to the Register of Deeds for

14

14

annotation. Thus many individuals have mistakenly thought that lands covered

by certain validated titles are public. Believing these lands to be

extensions of the public domain, they settled thereon and built shelters.

Many of them have been residing thereon for more than 30 years. And then

suddenly, title holders with large capital and political influence are coming

to displace them, flashing validation resolutions in their favor and, in several

cases, demolition orders issued by the Baguio City Hall.

In some cases, heirs of original claimants who transferred the lots to

buyers in good faith have taken physical possession thereof to the prejudice

of the latter, arguing that the lands are public lands because the titles were

not validated. The non-validation has also become an argument for squatting

and displacement of legitimate claimants.

In some cases, the lands are still undergoing the validation process.

Even if the application deadline lapsed more than twenty years ago, the

process is still taking place for those who filed and paid on time. Meantime,

some lands of such nature have been taken over either by bona fide settlers or

by squatting syndicates.

Legal Status of Lands Which Were Not Validated

Many lands covered by 211 titles in the name of the original Ibaloi

owners were not validated. The failure of claimants to apply for validation

may have been occasioned by ignorance. But it may also have been due to

distrust in the government which gave them titles it would later revoke.

Schaffer and Huang (1975) best expressed this when they suggested that

people at times neglect to avail of a service offered by the State because it

comes with unwanted and frightening packages. In the case of the validation

service, the unwanted package could be the legal uncertainties or the

payment requirement.

The failure to apply could also have been an expression of resistance

on the part of indigenous people .to pay for what they believe is theirs by

native title.

What is the status of these titles that were not subjected to validation? It

appears that there is a prevailing culture of bureaucratic ambiguity in the

government in respect to the affected lands. Such ambiguity renders “the

organizational environment to be a legal jungle where clear cut policies and

rules to guide action and behavior of personnel are unclear and constantly

changing (Varela 1993).”

The Supreme Court nullified all “211 titles,” a decision legislated under

PD 1271. The effect of the nullification is to revert the lands to where they

originally belonged immediately prior to the nullification. This is the mass of

public lands. If they fall within the townsite, then interested individuals may

apply for townsite sales. Possession of these lands, however long cannot ripen

into ownership50 because lands within the townsite reservation may be

acquired only through townsite sale and in some cases, miscellaneous sales.

50 Republic vs. Fangonil, et al., supra.

15

15

However, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources

(DENR) does not consider them conflated with the public domain.

Applications for townsite sales covering 211 titles are not accepted by the

agency because only public lands are open for disposition. One view holds

that there is a need for the State through the office of the Solicitor-General to

institute reversion proceedings to “reunite” the 211 lands to the mass of

public domain open for alienation and disposition. Short of reversion, the

non-validated 211 titles will not be open for disposition by way of TSA. Thus,

the agency does not process TSA over the so-called 211 titles.

A legal opinion of the DENR-Regional Office is to the effect that while

the 211 titles were declared null and void, there are vested rights in the

subject lands. These vested rights must be protected which is why the lands

are not open for townsite sales application. Meantime, DENR sought a legal

opinion from the Department of Justice (DOJ) on how to dispose of the titles

covered by 211 titles that did not go through validation but the latter has no

response yet.51

On the other hand, the Office of the Register of Deeds does not

recognize the validity of the 211 titles. If a lot covered by a 211 title which has

not been validated is sold, the Register of Deeds will not cancel the old title

and issue a new one, although this office has not been consistent in enforcing

this policy.52 This non-recognition of 211 titles by the City as well as the

decisions in the Marcos cases has become a push for squatting on “211 lands.”

The City Government on the other hand does not grant building

permits over lands with “211 titles” because they are not considered titled.53

The denial of a building permit translates into lack of access to water and

electricity as the utility firms require a building permit before they connect a

house to electricity and water supplies.

In other words, depending on which government office one deals with,

lands with 211 titles that were not validated are either private or public.

While the bureaucracy is mired in ambiguity and the legal status of lands

covered by non-validated 211 titles flounders in limbo, the land conflicts

escalate.

Squatting on 211 titles has become endemic with the squatters arguing

that that the affected land is part of the public domain.

In fact, many such lands presented an opportunity for fraud committed

against hapless informal settlers by corporations, apparently in connivance

with some government offices. Two major cases will be discussed

hereunder.

Case Study No. 1: The Case of OCT No. O-56

51 Interview with Atty. Joseph Humiding, Chief, Legal Division, DENR-CAR; 23 February 2009

52The record of Office of the Baguio Registry of Deeds shows that in 1988, it cancelled 192

titles in the name of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) and transferred the

same to Asia Pine Hills Development Corporation. The GSIS titles were not validated.

53 Under the Building Code, only registered properties may be covered by building permits.

16

16

A wide parcel of land was registered in the name of Mariel Pucay under

Civil Reservation Case No. 1, Record No. LRC 211 as a result of the reopening

of the said case. Mariel Pucay’s title was OCT No. 56 of the Registry of Deeds

of Baguio City. This title was subsequently nullified by PD 1271. The lands

were transferred to Cypress Point Subdivision which mortgaged the same to

the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). The GSIS in turn foreclosed

the same. Eventually, the GSIS consolidated the title in its name. The titles

were not validated, although it applied for validation. It failed to pay the

required 15% of the assessed value of the lot as required by PD 1271 as

amended by PD 2304..

As early as the 1970’s and early 80’s, several people settled upon the

land which showed no visible sign of improvement. They erected residential

structures. All throughout their stay upon the land in question, they were

unmolested.

Various acts of the government throughout the years all point to the fact

that the State and its instrumentalities and political subdivisions had been

considering the Cypress Point as a public land. The government constructed

roads and pathways which it would never have done and it would never do on

private land.

Sometime in the 1990’s, the Baguio City Council Committee on Lands

informed residents that the area was to be developed for socialized housing

and urged them to organize so that they could finally be issued certificates of

titles to the lands that they were occupying.

An organization, the Blooming Hills Community Organization was thus

born and registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It would

evolve into the Blooming Hill Community Organization Homeowners

Association (BHCOHOA hereafter) and be split into Phase 1 and Phase 2.

Another organization, Irisan Community Homeowners Association,

Incorporated (ICHAI) was also established. Another organization, the Irisan

Community Homeowners Association, Incorporated (ICHAI) was also born.

In the year 2000, the Baguio City Council passed a Resolution

authorizing the then City Mayor Atty. Mauricio G. Domogan to negotiate with

one Peter Santos who came forward to claim the properties in behalf of Asia

Pine Hills Subdivision. Santos offered for sale to the city the lands “to be

identified as a site of the socialized housing project of the City of Baguio”.

The National Housing Authority entered the picture and started dealing

with the BHCOHOA urging them to subject themselves to the NHA’s

Community Mortgage Program under the National Home Mortgage Finance

Corporation so that they could purchase the lots in their possession from

APHDC. Relying on the representations of government officials as to the

legitimacy of the claim of APHDC, and with threats of demolition from

government officials and Baguio City Hall employees, many members of the

BHCOHOA were forced to pay their equity over their lots. More would follow

suit when even the shelters of members who partially paid their equity were

likewise demolished. Demolitions were effected not because people built

structures without building permits but because they refused to pay their

17

17

equity. A demolition order was in fact used repeatedly to justify demolitions

of homes of people who refused to pay.54

Furthermore, the National Housing Authority subjected certain lots to

double equity. Thus, there are now parcels of lots with two people paying the

equity thereon. Worse, payments of some residents were not reflected. And

still worst, individuals who are not settlers on the lands in question were

allowed to pay the equities for certain lots, in violation of the law.

Concerned residents approached the Cordillera Indigenous Legal

Center (Dinteg) and Organisasyon Dagiti Naukurapay Iti Umili (Ornus) for

assistance. These organizations discovered that the 192 certificates of titles of

GSIS, each covering lots with an assessed value of more than P20,000.00 were

eventually cancelled in favor of the APHDC sometime in 1988.What made this

alarming is that in the late 1990’s, the GSIS titles were still subsisting in the

office of the Register of Deed.

Upon further investigation, it was discovered that the GSIS national and

local offices do not have any record of any official transaction with the APHDC

involving the land.55 And the Register of Deeds does not have any record of

how the GSIS property was transferred to APHDC.

More than once, individuals including this writer attempted to get a

copy of the “day book” or the book where transactions on a particular day are

listed by the office of the Registry of Deeds of the City of Baguio, to determine

if indeed on 28 June 1988, 192 titles of GSIS were cancelled and transferred in

the name of APHDC. There was a consistent answer: the day book for that

particular period is missing!

The 192 certificates of title of APHDC contain entries that they had been

validated in 1994. However, the validation resolutions clearly show that the

requirements under PD 1271 as amended by PD 2034 were not properly

complied with. The resolutions themselves reveal that the payment of 15% of

the assessed value of the property was made in 1994. PD 2034 provides that it

should be made upon application. The deadline for validation applications

was February 1987.

Still furthermore, the signatures of Ernesto Diomampo on the

certificates of title of APHDC, appear to be forged. It bears mention that

Diomampo’s signatures as they appear on the questionable documents

closely resemble the signature of the late Baguio City Register of Deeds

54 Demolition Order No. 27 was originally issued with the date 9 June 2003 and when first

implemented, several homes were demolished. In Sylvia Licano et al vs. Nazita Banez, et al.

docketed as Civil Case No. 5600-R, plaintiffs sought to enjoin the further implementation of

the order. Appearing in court, Nazita Banez, head of Baguio’s demolition team and the City

Legal Officer Melchor Rabanes, claimed that the Demolition Order was fully implemented so

that plaintiffs withdrew their injunction case. However, the demolition order was resurrected

twice by Banez and given the dates October 10, 2003 and November 19, 2003, respectively.

More structures of informal settlers were demolished as a result. On 2 January 2007, the

Demolition Order was revived by the City Government.

55 Wilfredo Ong wrote this writer a letter on 6 January 2006 dismissing as shotgun inquiry

her request for documents relative to the transaction involving the Cypress Point lot

acquired by GSIS but later transferred to APHDC. He also said that the custody of the

documents was decentralized. But in 2003, this writer interviewed Ms Vilma Padilla of the

Baguio GSIS local office. The latter said that the transactions could have happened at the

Central Office because the local office has no record.

18

18

Onofre Alabanza and are far distinct from his signatures on unquestionable

titles on file with the Register of Deeds. 56

Concerned residents brought these issues to the attention of the Baguio

City Council which created a committee to investigate.57 However, the

committee did not do anything about it. Repeated calls on the Baguio City

Government to investigate did not yield any positive result.

Up to this time, APHDC is collecting from the residents. Payments are

being given to a certain law office connected to a powerful government

official. It appears that NHA has been slashed off the picture. And up to this

time, residents who refuse to pay are facing threats of demolition.

Case Study No. 2: : The Case of OCT No. O-62

Like OCT No. 0-56, OCT No. O-62 was issued by way of reopening of

Civ. Res. Case No. 1. And like OCT No. O-56, it was nullified by the Supreme

Court.

In 1970, after the first Republic vs. Marcos case was decided, part of the

land was transferred to Cypress Point Village Incorporated which was issued

several transfer certificates of title. TCT No. T-20573 covered the largest area,

approximately 1.7 hectares. In 1973, Cypress mortgaged the lot covered by

TCT No. T-20573 to Ateneo de Manila University (AdeMU). The latter did not

foreclose the mortgage so the title remained in the name of the corporation.

Meantime, several people settled on the land which was abandoned

and raw. They and the residents of the adjacent lots described in Case No. 1

improved their respective areas until it became the place now called

Cypress Point in Irisan barangay. Their possession was peaceful and

undisturbed by anyone. The titles to the lands were not validated.

In the late 1990’s, a EMMA Construction, a Baguio-based firm also

using the name FREM Construction, engaged in the development of

subdivisions came forward to claim the lots. This firm owned an adjacent

subdivision located in Tuba, Benguet.

In 2000, the Baguio City Council passed Resolution No. 286 s.2000,

identifying the lot as the site of a socialized housing project.

Using the Resolution, FREM intimidated the residents and threatened

them with eviction unless they paid the lots under the Community Mortgage

Program. Claiming to have the backing of city hall, its representative

presented special powers of attorney allegedly executed in favor of her firm

by Cypress Point Village, Incorporated. She would write letters using an

alleged letterhead of Cypress Point Village, Incorporated with an address

found later to be inexistent. Without a building permit, she installed two

guardhouses and her guards would patrol the area intimidating the residents.

56TCT No. T-44696 appears to have been signed by then Register of Deeds Ernesto

Diomampo in 1995. However, his signature does not bear ay semblance to his signatures in

other documents signed around the same period. Instead, the signature looks like a copy of

the late Register of Deeds Onofre Alabanza’s signature.

57 This writer submitted a report to the Baguio City Council on the anomalies involving the

land in Irisan. The report was orally presented during a City Council Session.

19

19

FREM would make inconsistent claims in several communications

issued to the residents. At times, it would claim to be the owner; at other

times, it would claim that the owner was Cypress Point Village but the firm

had a joint venture agreement with it.

Because of the shroud of doubt surrounding EMMA/FREM’s claim,

affected residents approached the ORNUS and the Cordillera Indigenous

Peoples Law Center (Dinteg) for legal assistance. ORNUS and Dinteg’s

investigation showed the following:

a. Cypress Point Village which allegedly issued SPA in favor of the

Baguio-based firm was legally dead. Its certificate of registration

was revoked by the government more than twenty years ago. Thus,

it ceased to be an artificial person and had no rights.

b. The alleged office of Cypress Point did not exist.

c. Ateneo never foreclosed the mortgage executed by Cypress.

It was also discovered that a lawyer, acting for and in behalf of AdeMU

applied for the validation of TCT No. T-20573. In the application for validation,

the lawyer claimed that the title of AdeMU was issued by virtue of a mortgage

in its favor.58 This cannot possibly happen because Art. 2088 of the Civil Code

prohibits pacto comisorium, or a situation where the creditor appropriates or

disposes the things mortgaged to him/her/it (Tolentino 1983).

Surprisingly, in spite of the glaring legal loopholes, the DENR local

office indorsed the application for validation. It even issued a certification

dated 6 August 2002 to the effect that Cypress Point Village, Incorporated was

in actual occupation of the lot and it introduced several houses and other

improvements.59 The DENR local office was also forced to admit that it was

the Baguio firm itself that hand-carried to the Land Registration Authority the

papers supporting the validation applications – an unquestionable situation of

blurring of the the space between what is public interest and what is private

concern.

Dinteg was able to stop the validation when it filed a protest in behalf of

the residents. In its protest, Dinteg questioned the personality of AdeMU to

apply for validation since only title holders may exercise the right. Since

Cypress Point, the title holder did not file a validation for application, the land

could not possibly be the subject of a validation process.

Since then, not a single communication was received from the LRA. But

the residents are no longer being disturbed by EMMA/FREM.

Epilogue

Independent of its upholding the Regalian Doctrine, PD 1271 was not

without a bright spot for it intended to protect title holders in good faith who

were adversely affected by the decision in the Republic vs. Marcos cases. It

58

Application for Validation of Certificate of Title VA (B) No. 6552 over TCT No. T-20573 dated 3

February 1987 filed by Leo Pascua in behalf of Ateneo de Manila University.

59

Investigation Report of Edilberto A. Quiaoit dated 2 August 2006 addressed to the Committee on

Validation.

20

20

must be noted that Pres. Marcos issued PD 2034, an amendment to PD 1271

because “it has been found that there are also still thousands of applications

duly filed before the deadline set by the law for which, however, no full

payment had yet been made of the required fifteen (15%) percent of the

assessed value of the lands covered by the titles” and “it is necessary in the

public interest to preserve the indefeasibility and integrity of such titles thru

the process of validation by giving holders thereof another opportunity to

have their titles duly validated by way of extending the period for the filing of

applications for such validation (PD 2034: 1986).”

The decisions of the CFI presided over by Marcos were also inspired

by good intentions to the eyes of an objective observer. Judge Marcos’

decisions sought to redress historic grievances of hapless indigenous

peoples who by the stroke of a pen were displaced from their ancestral

territories.

And yet, since these government acts had to be implemented within

the very same system that perpetrated the injustices they intended to rectify,

they were bound to fail as they did fail. As exemplified by the two cases

discussed, the bureaucracy has shown bias in favor of the moneyed, bending

rules to accommodate the latter’s interest. In so doing, it confirmed the

Marxist assumption that the State is but a committee for managing the affairs

of the bourgeoisie (Marx 1998) giving rise to a situation where some people,

“may have much more influence than the others (Nigro and Nigro 1992: 23).”

PD 1271 has also inspired the emergence of conflicts between the

powerful and the politicized minority and between the oppressed among

themselves. The informal settlers who are also entitled to the basic right to

shelter are now pitted against ancestral land claimants and bona fide

transferees..

Of course, it is paradoxical to say that PD 1271 addressed itself, if

partially, to the correction of symptoms of an unjust legal symptom. Even

assuming that it cured symptoms, the system remains diseased. Solving

Baguio’s land problems is not just a matter of addressing the issues wrought

by the implementation of PD 1271.

Baguio has several stakeholders: the original Ibaloi claimants, their

legitimate transferees in good faith, the informal settlers many of whom are

good faith possessors, and the landless residents of Baguio (UP Land

Congress Participants 2008). In the face of all of these conflicting claims, what

is the best way of dealing with the land issues in the city?

It is well to recall that “the essence of a political system is its ability to

accommodate and synthesize pressures that otherwise would be incapable of

accommodation” (Morrow 1975). Since the land problem is a creation of the

legal system implemented by a bureaucracy operating with a culture of

ambiguity, a meaningful solution cannot result from mere legislation. The

bureaucracy itself needs to be overhauled.

In the area of legislation, the solution appears simple. There is a need

to eliminate the motley conflicts in the land laws. The call for a change of the

obsolete City Charter has a very strong public appeal but while the drafting

process excludes the stakeholders, its appeal drowns in the climate of public

distrust. The times have changed since the coming of the Americans, as

oppression has a way of making many of its victims become conscious of

21

21

their situation and, therefore, class against the State and the dominant forces

that inspires its behavior. Against the present Baguio society’s dominant

groups are politicized individuals and groups who have risen from among the

oppressed, now demanding that their voices be heard.

Thus, any proposed change to the Baguio Charter, to be acceptable

must be crafted with the participation of the different stakeholders whose

issues are legitimate.60 This ensures that the public service that the law

generates is the demand of the sovereign to ensure what one writer calls the

co-production of service by both the providers and the clients (Whitaker

1980). It cannot be the work of one person representing the interests of the

political majority to the prejudice of the powerless numerical majority – the

original indigenous claimants, their legitimate transferees, the urban poor

who also need housing who must dialogue with the state and among

themselves (Boquiren 2008). Otherwise, the law might not respond to the

people’s issues. When policy-makers define problems for people who have

not defined the problems for themselves, “there is the danger that the (they)

may make hasty, erroneous, superficial or arbitrary judgments in defining

problems” (Nigro and Nigro 1992: 23). So that all the stakeholders will

define the city’s land problems and all the legitimate issues surface, it is

imperative to hold a genuine land congress that will serve as venue to mn

surface all land issues and to ventilate stakeholders’ concerns.

In the meantime that there are no legislative reforms, how should the

government deal with the land issues spawned by PD 1271? Mainstream

liberal theorists of public administration would say that the State has to come

in as a neutral arbiter of interests which does not regard any interest of any

sector as dominant (Carino 1992). In the case of implementing PD 1271, the

has to be faithful to its policy, observe the deadlines set by the law and

enforce compliance with the requisites. Marxist theorists concede this view,

but take exception to the advocacy for neutrality. The state, in arbitrating

the struggle between forces, must not adopt a politics incapable of

appreciating the economic struggle (Carino 1992). Applied in Baguio City, the

local government must not favorably entertain every application for massive

demolition of homes simply because these homes were erected without

building permits. There should be other parameters. If the presence or

absence of a building permit were the only basis for issuing demolition

orders, then more than 50 percent of Baguio’s houses should be demolished.

The City Government should also take the initiative to investigate all

the land scams connected to PD 1271, prosecute the guilty and take steps to

restore the rights displaced by the unscrupulous corporations. For while the

government is lackadaisical in its response to big time land scams being

perpetrated in the city, it contributes to the aggravation of the already serious

land conflicts that are derailing Baguio’s surge.

60 Position Paper on the land provisions of House Bill No. 2813 (An Act Revising the Charter of

the City of Baguio) signed by the Delegates of the Baguio Land Conference (The Baguio Land

Situation: Problems, Positions and Alternatives) on August 28-29, 2008

22

22

References

Adorable vs. Director of Forestry, 107 Phil 401

Application for Validation of Certificate of Title VA (B) No. 6552 over TCT No.

T-20573 dated 3 February 1987 filed by Leo Pascua in behalf of Ateneo de

Manila University.

Baguio Centennial Commission. 2008. “History.” Accessed from

http://www.baguiocentennial.com/?page_id=17

Baguio City Council. 2000. Resolution No. 286 s.2000,

Baguio City Government. 2003. Demolition Order No. 27, s. 2003, dated 9 June

2003

Baguio City Government. 2003. Demolition Order No. 27, s. 2003, dated 10

October 2003

Baguio City Government. 2003. Demolition Order No. 27, s. 2003, dated 19

November 2003

Barnes, Robert, and Andrew Gray and Benedict Kingsbury 1995. Indigenous

Peoples of Asia. Michigan: Association for Asian Studies

Boquiren, Arthur. 2008. Economics and Society 101: Notes on Baguio’s

Land problem; in the Northern Dispatch Weekly

Boquiren, Rowena R. 2008. The Natute of Land Problems in Baguio. Accessed

fromhttp://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/bag/2008/08/23/oped/nonnette.bennett.

stories..html. 23 August

Camdas vs. Director of Lands, Supreme Court General Record No. L-37782,

March 8, 1974

Carino, Joanna K. 2008. The Mateo And Bayosa Carino Story: A Case Study of the

Dispossession of the Native Ibaloi in Baguio City. Presented during the Baguio

Centennial Conference, 6 March 2009.

Carino, Ledevina V. 1992. “Bureaucracy for Democracy. Quezon City:

University of the Philippines

Carino, Ledevina V. 1993. Bureaucratic Power for Political Development. In

Introduction to Public Administration in the Philippines: A Reader. Quezon City:

University of the Philippines

Carino vs Insular Government, 212 U.S. 449 (1909)

Carnoy, Martin. 1984. The State and Political Theory. Princeton, New Jersey:

Princeton University Press

Chaffee, Frederic et al. 1969. Area Handbook for the Philippines. Washington

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Daytec-Yangot, Cheryl L. 2003. Report to the Baguio City Council on the Status

of Lands in Cypress Point, Irisan, Being Claimed by Asia Pine Hills Subdivision.

23

23

Submitted to the Baguio City Council and presented during the Baguio City

Council Session on 25 August 2003.

Daytec-Yangot, Cheryl L. 2008. A Bipolar Philippine Constitution: Reinforcing

the Oppression of Indigenous Peoples Under a Double-Edged Legal Paradigm.

Paper presented during the Regional Training Programme on Use of UN

Human Rights Procedures and National Institutions on Indigenous Peoples;

Kathmandu, Nepal: Asian Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ Network.

Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2002. Certification of

Improvement issued by Engr. Edilberto Qiuaoit

Director of Forestry vs. Munos, 132 Phil 637

Director of Lands vs Rivas, 141 SCRA 329

Government Service Insurance System. 2006. Letter of Wilfredo Ong to Atty.

Cheryl Daytec-Yangot

Gramsci, Antonio H. 1992. Prison Notebooks. Trans by Joseph A. Buttigieg.

New York: Columbia University Press.

Gumangan, et alis vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 75672, April 19, 1989.

Irisan Peoples Action Against Demolition and for Good Governance

(IPADEGG 2006. Position Paper on the Land Problems in Cypress and San

Carlos Heights.

Land Classification Map No. 1024

Land Congress Participants 2008. Position Paper on the Land Provisions of

House Bill No. 2813 (An Act Revising the Charter of the City of Baguio) , 8 August

Marx. Karl and Friedrich Engels 2002: The Communist Manifesto. New York:

Signet Classics

Morrow, William 1975. Public Administration, Politics and the Political System.

New York: Random House

Nigro, Felix A. and Lloyd G. Nigro 1992: Modern Public Administration Quezon

City: Harper Collins Publishers

Noblejas, Antonio H. 1992. Registration of Land Titles and Deeds. Manila: Rex

Bookstore

Prill-Brett, June 1990: Baguio A Multi-ethnic City and the Development of the

Ibaloy as an Ethnic Minority (Cordillera Studies Center Working Paper No.

15). Baguio City: University of the Philippines

Reed, Robert R. 1999: The Origins of Baguio as a Colonial Hill Station and

Regional Capital, 2nd ed. Baguio City: A-Seven Publishing

Republic of the Philippines 2003. Baguio: A Beautiful American Legacy.

Accessed from http://www.gov.ph/news/default.asp?i=3773

Republic vs Animas, 56 SCRA 499 .

24

24

Republic vs Court of Appeals, 135 SCRA 156

Republic vs dela Cruz, 67 SCRA 648

Republic vs. Fangonil, et al., G.R. No. L-57112 November 29, 1984

Republic vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 186 SCRA 88

Republic, et al. v. Hon. Pio R. Marcos, et al., 29 SCRA 517.

Republic v. Marcos, 52 SCRA 238 (1973).

Republic et al vs. Sangalang, G.R. No. L-58822 April 8, 1988

Scott, William Henry: 1993. Of Igorots and Independence: Two Essays; ERA

Publications; Baguio City: 1993.

Schaffer, Bernard and Huang Wen-Hsien. 1975. Distribution and Theory of

Access. Development and Change. 6 (2) April

Swenson, Sally. 1987. "National Minorities." In The Philippines Reader. Boston:

South End Press.

Tolentino, Arturo M. 1983. Commentary on the Civil Code of the Philippines,

Volume II. Manila: Central Law Book Publishing

Vano v. Government of the Philippine Islands, 41 Phil 161;

Varela, Amelia P. 1993. “The Culture Perspective in Organization Theory:

Relevance to Philippine Public Administration.” In Introduction to Public

Administration in the Philippines: A Reader. Quezon City: University of the

Philippines

Villarico vs. Court of Appeals GR No. 105912, 29 June 1999

Zarate vs Director of Lands, 58 Phil 156

25

25