Title
Daco vs. Cabajar
Case
G.R. No. 222611
Decision Date
Nov 15, 2021
A Tagbanua indigenous leader challenges another’s ancestral land claim; Supreme Court upholds native title, dismissing tax-based ownership and enforcing IPRA jurisdiction.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 222611)

Facts:

Arnolfo A. Daco, a Tagbanua native of Busuanga, Palawan, was accused by Ruben E. Cabajar, a fellow Tagbanua of Barangay Panlaitan, Busuanga, Palawan and president of the Panlaitan San Isidro Cultural Minorities Development Association, of unlawfully entering and occupying Isla Malajem on October 12, 2012, accompanied by barangay tanods and constructing a nipa hut despite protests by the Tagbanua elders who maintained native possession and use of the island for *balinsasayaw* (edible bird’s nest) harvesting. Cabajar, authorized by the Council of Elders, filed a complaint before the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) Regional Hearing Office for violation of Section 10 of the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA), alleging unauthorized intrusion and claiming that the area was part of the Tagbanua ancestral domain supported by an Assumption Over Ancestral Domain issued by former NCIP Chair Eugenio Insigne and Municipal Resolution No. 39, series 1996. The NCIP Regional Hearing Office IV, after an ocular inspection and despite Daco’s nonappearance, found jurisdiction and ruled on January 12, 2015 that Isla Malajem formed part of the Tagbanua ancestral domain, declared Daco’s intrusion unlawful, permanently enjoined him to vacate, and awarded P50,000.00 moral damages, P150,000.00 actual damages, and P50,000.00 exemplary damages. Daco appealed to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 but the appeal was dismissed in a March 6, 2015 Resolution for multiple procedural infirmities, including failure to pay docket fees, incomplete party names, lack of special power of attorney, defective affidavit jurat, outdated counsel details, and missing attachments; a motion for reconsideration was denied on December 14, 2015. Daco then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court; respondent filed a Comment on June 6, 2016, the Court required a reply and later directed counsels to show cause for dilatory conduct, and petitioner ultimately filed a Reply on August 7, 2019 explaining counsel’s advanced age and sickness.

Issues:

Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing petitioner’s appeal on procedural grounds?; Did the NCIP have jurisdiction over respondent’s complaint for violation of Section 10 of the IPRA?; Does petitioner Arnolfo A. Daco have a legitimate claim of ownership or possession over Isla Malajem that defeats the Tagbanua native title?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.