This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2000-12-06 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In the Philippines, the concept of native title first upheld in Cariño and enshrined in the IPRA grants ownership, albeit in limited form, of the land to the ICCs/IPs. Native title presumes that the land is private and was never public. Cariño is the only case that specifically and categorically recognizes native title. The long line of cases citing Cariño did not touch on native title and the private character of ancestral domains and lands. Cariño was cited by the succeeding cases to support the concept of acquisitive prescription under the Public Land Act which is a different matter altogether. Under the Public Land Act, land sought to be registered must be public agricultural land. When the conditions specified in Section 48 [b] of the Public Land Act are complied with, the possessor of the land is deemed to have acquired, by operation of law, a right to a grant of the land.[189] The land ceases to be part of the public domain,[190] ipso jure,[191] and is converted to private property by the mere lapse or completion of the prescribed statutory period. | |||||
|
2000-11-20 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| While it may be true that applicant purchased the subject property in 1913, the same could not have ripened into ownership because only fourteen (14) years thereafter, portions of the land were classified as forest land. The possession of forest land, however long, never confers title upon the possessor because the statute of limitations with regard to public land does not ran against the State, unless the occupant can prove a grant from the State.[16] | |||||