Case Digest (G.R. No. 209691)
Facts:
Gabriel B. Diclas, Antonia S. Dianson, Carlos Ansis, et al. v. Maximo Bugnay, Sr., G.R. No. 209691, January 16, 2023, Supreme Court Second Division, Leonen, SAJ., writing for the Court. Petitioners are members of the Ibaloi and Kankana-ey indigenous groups of Benguet who claim ownership and long-time possession of parcels in Pinsao, Baguio City; respondent Maximo Bugnay, Sr. holds four Certificates of Ancestral Land Title (CALT) later converted into original certificates of title covering nearly 77,585 sq. m.Petitioners trace some of their asserted rights to a pioneer ancestor, Bilag, whose claim was referenced in Proclamation No. 401 (1957); they say portions were inherited and occupied since time immemorial, erected houses, cultivated land and maintained burial sites, but were unable to secure registered titles because Baguio was a townsite reservation. Between the mid-1990s and early 2000s they pursued townsite sales applications before the DENR; Administrative Order No. 504 Committee preclearances initially certified some applied lots as outside ancestral claims, leading to awards or bids for certain lots.
In 2007 the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) issued CALTs in favor of Bugnay, Sr. Petitioners filed a Petition for Cancellation before the NCIP, alleging the CALTs were obtained by fraud, stealth and in violation of due process and NCIP procedural requirements; they submitted photos of improvements and tombs, tax declarations, townsite applications and awards, affidavits, a sketch plan, and documents (a special power of attorney and a joint-venture agreement) they said showed improper transfers. Bugnay, Sr. defended by asserting ancestral lineage, a 1963 family survey (five plans), earlier applications for recognition (1990, 1996), protests against petitioners’ townsite filings, and that his NCIP application complied substantively with documentary, survey and ocular inspection requirements.
The NCIP denied petitioners’ cancellation petition and denied reconsideration. Petitioners sought review in the Court of Appeals which initially dismissed their petition for procedural infirmities, but later admitted an amended petition and, in an April 16, 2013 Decision (and October 11, 2013 Resolution denying reconsideration), denied relief, giving great weight to the NCIP’s factual findings: petitioner...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondent Maximo Bugnay, Sr. commit actual and extrinsic fraud in securing his Certificates of Ancestral Land Title?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that petitioners failed to establish that they had acquired a vested right over the parcels?
- Does publication alone suffice to vest the NCIP with jurisdiction over an application for recognition of ancestral land claim under Section 53 of the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA)?
- Did respondent fail to comply with the mandatory requirements for delineation and recognition of ancestral lands...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)