Case Summary (G.R. No. 180206)
Relevant Dates and Procedural Milestones
Demolition advices issued September 19, 2006 with intended demolition October 17–20, 2006. NCIP TROs issued October 16 and 19, 2006; NCIP resolution granting preliminary injunction dated November 10, 2006 (subject to P10,000 bond per respondent). Petition for certiorari filed by petitioners to the Court of Appeals; CA affirmed NCIP jurisdiction and its injunctive orders (CA decision April 16, 2007; CA resolution September 11, 2007). Petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court, which rendered judgment reversing the CA and dismissing NCIP case No. 31-CAR-06.
Applicable Law and Administrative Rules
Primary statutes and instruments invoked: Republic Act No. 8371 (Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 — IPRA), particularly Sections 3(k), 38, 66, 69 and 70; NCIP Administrative Circular No. 1-03 (Rules on Pleadings, Practice and Procedure Before the NCIP), especially Sec. 5, Rule III and Sec. 82, Rule XV; Presidential Decrees No. 705 and No. 1096; Republic Act No. 7279 (Urban Development and Housing). Proclamation No. 15 (April 27, 1922) establishing the Busol Forest Reservation and withdrawing the area from sale or settlement. Controlling judicial precedent cited: Heirs of Gumangan v. Court of Appeals (1989) (Busol Forest Reservation declared inalienable).
Factual Background
The City Mayor issued three demolition orders directed at illegal structures built by Lazaro Bawas, Alexander Ampaguey, Sr., and a Mr. Basatan on a portion of the Busol Watershed Reservation for lack of building permits and violation of applicable land-use and building laws. Private respondents filed a petition for injunction with the NCIP-CAR asserting that the lands are their ancestral lands, occupied openly and continuously since time immemorial, allegedly recognized in Proclamation No. 15 and recommended by DENR for exclusion from Busol Forest Reserve coverage. The respondents sought restraint against enforcement of the demolition orders.
Procedural Posture Before NCIP and CA Rulings
The NCIP Regional Hearing Officer granted TROs (October 16 and 19, 2006) and later a preliminary injunction (November 10, 2006) conditioned on posting bonds. Petitioners sought certiorari relief in the Court of Appeals, which upheld the NCIP’s jurisdiction and sustained the injunctive relief. The CA also held that Baguio City is not altogether exempt from IPRA’s coverage. Petitioners then sought review before the Supreme Court.
Issue Presented
Whether the NCIP had jurisdiction to entertain a main action for injunction and issue TROs/preliminary injunctions in respect of alleged ancestral land claims within the Busol Forest Reservation; and whether the private respondents were entitled to injunctive protection given the status of the Busol Forest Reservation and Proclamation No. 15.
NCIP Jurisdiction: Legal Standards and Application
Under IPRA, the NCIP is the primary agency to formulate and implement policies for ICCs/IPs and is vested with jurisdiction over claims and disputes involving ICC/IP rights, including ancestral land/domains, subject to exhaustion of remedies under customary law and certification by the relevant Council of Elders/Leaders that customary remedies were attempted. NCIP Administrative Circular No. 1-03 enumerates cases within the NCIP-RHO’s original and exclusive jurisdiction, including disputes over ancestral lands/domains and other property-related controversies affecting ICCs/IPs. IPRA Section 69 expressly grants the NCIP quasi-judicial powers, including the authority to issue temporary restraining orders and to enjoin acts arising from cases pending before it when necessary to prevent grave or irreparable damage. The Supreme Court recognized that, on the face of the petition, private respondents qualified as members of an ICC/IP (Ibaloi tribe) asserting ancestral-land claims, and that the allegations therefore fell within the NCIP-RHO’s original and exclusive jurisdiction. The NCIP’s power to issue TROs and preliminary injunctions is likewise supported by IPRA and implementing NCIP rules; nothing in the statute limits such injunctive powers to matters ancillary to other pending proceedings.
Nature of Proclamation No. 15 and the Busol Forest Reservation
Proclamation No. 15 identifies certain family names (Molintas and Gumangan) as claimants of portions within the area but, as interpreted by the Court, does not constitute definitive recognition of vested ancestral rights. The proclamation explicitly withdrew the described parcels from sale or settlement and established the Busol Forest Reservation to be administered for conservation and protection of water and timber, subordinating other uses to watershed protection. The Supreme Court relied on prior judicial determination in Heirs of Gumangan v. Court of Appeals that the Busol Forest Reservation is inalienable, precluding conversion into private property and placing such forest lands beyond the courts’ competence to adjudicate as private property.
Baguio City Charter Provision and Effect on IPRA Coverage
Section 78 of IPRA provides that the C
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 180206)
Court, Citation and Panel
- Supreme Court of the Philippines, Second Division; G.R. No. 180206; Decision dated February 4, 2009; reported at 597 Phil. 668.
- Decision authored by Justice Tinga.
- Justices Quisumbing (Chairperson), Carpio Morales, Velasco, Jr., and Brion concurred.
Parties
- Petitioners:
- The City Government of Baguio City, represented by Mayor Reynaldo (Reinaldo) Bautista, Jr.
- The Anti-Squatting Committee, represented by Atty. Melchor Carlos R. Rabanes.
- City Buildings and Architecture Office, represented by Oscar Flores.
- Public Order and Safety Office, initially represented by Emmanuel Reyes and later substituted by Gregorio Deligero.
- Respondents:
- Atty. Brain S. Masweng, Regional Officer, National Commission on Indigenous Peoples — Cordillera Administrative Region (NCIP-CAR), Regional Hearing Officer.
- Private respondents: Elvin Gumangan, Narciso Basatan and Lazaro Bawas (members of the Ibaloi tribe).
Nature and Title of the NCIP Proceeding
- Docketed in the NCIP-CAR, Regional Hearing Office as Case No. 31-CAR-06.
- Petition filed by private respondents characterized as a petition for injunction seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction to restrain enforcement of demolition orders issued by the City Mayor and related city offices.
Underlying Facts (Undisputed)
- The City Mayor of Baguio City, Braulio D. Yaranon, issued three (3) Demolition Orders directing the demolition of structures constructed by Lazaro Bawas, Alexander Ampaguey, Sr., and a Mr. Basatan on a portion of the Busol Watershed Reservation at Aurora Hill, Baguio City.
- The structures were alleged to be illegal, built without required building permits and in violation of Section 69 of Presidential Decree No. 705 (as amended), Presidential Decree No. 1096, and Republic Act No. 7279.
- Demolition advices dated September 19, 2006 informed occupants of intended demolition actions scheduled October 17–20, 2006.
- Private respondents filed their petition with the NCIP-CAR asserting that the lands where their houses stand are ancestral lands occupied and possessed openly and continuously since time immemorial.
- Private respondents alleged recognition of their ownership in Proclamation No. 15 (April 27, 1922) and recommended exclusion from the Busol Forest Reserve by the DENR.
- NCIP Regional Hearing Officer Atty. Brain S. Masweng issued two temporary restraining orders dated October 16 and October 19, 2006, restraining enforcement of the demolition advice and demolition orders for twenty (20) days.
- The NCIP issued a Resolution dated November 10, 2006 granting preliminary injunction subject to posting of an injunctive bond of P10,000.00 each by private respondents.
- The Court of Appeals, in CA G.R. SP No. 96895, dated April 16, 2007 (and Resolution dated September 11, 2007), affirmed the NCIP’s injunctive writs and held that Baguio City is not exempt from the coverage of Republic Act No. 8371 (IPRA).
Procedural History
- NCIP-CAR: Private respondents filed petition for injunction and obtained TROs (Oct 16 & 19, 2006) and preliminary injunction (Nov 10, 2006) subject to bond.
- Petitioners filed petition for certiorari (to annul NCIP actions) with the Court of Appeals.
- Court of Appeals upheld NCIP jurisdiction and affirmed TROs and preliminary injunction (April 16, 2007; resolution Sept 11, 2007).
- Petitioners brought the matter to the Supreme Court by petition (G.R. No. 180206).
- Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution, and dismissed NCIP Case No. 31-CAR-06. No pronouncement as to costs.
Legal Issues Presented (as litigated and addressed)
- Whether the NCIP had jurisdiction to hear and decide a main action for injunction as filed by private respondents.
- Whether Baguio City is exempt from the coverage of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (Republic Act No. 8371) by reason of Section 78 of IPRA and its charter.
- Whether Proclamation No. 15 (April 27, 1922) constitutes a definitive recognition of private respondents’ ancestral land rights such that injunctive relief was proper.
- Whether private respondents were entitled to injunctive relief restraining the enforcement of demolition orders issued under the city’s police power, given the Busol Forest Reservation’s legal status.
Petitioners’ Principal Contentions
- The NCIP has no jurisdiction to hear and decide main actions for injunction; its power to issue TROs and writs of preliminary injunction is ancillary/auxiliary only.
- Baguio City is governed by its Charter under IPRA Sec. 78; thus private respondents cannot claim ancestral lands under IPRA within Baguio City.
- Private respondents encroached upon and built structures in the Busol Forest Reservation without required permits, and are therefore not entitled to injunctive protection.
- Prior Supreme Court ruling in Heirs of Gumangan v. Court of Appeals declared the Busol Forest Reservation inalienable; long possession cannot convert forest reservation into private property.
- Even if an ancestral land application is pending, any right is contingent and not a basis for injunctive protection.
- The Busol Forest Reservation is essential to public welfare as Baguio’s main watershed and is exempt from ancestral claims; demolition orders executed pursuant to the city’s police power were lawful.
Private Respondents’ Principal Contentions
- The IPRA does not restrict the NCIP to issuing injunctive relief only as an auxiliary remedy; NCIP may take cognizance of and decide main actions for injunction.
- IPRA does not exempt Baguio City from its coverage; it does not state that there are no ancestral lands in Baguio City.
- Private respondents are members of the Ibaloi indigenous community native to Baguio City, and are treated as squatters despite holding native title to ancestral land.
- IPRA recognizes ancestral lands held by native title as never having been public lands; Busol Forest Reservation is subject to ancestral land claims.
- Proclamation No. 15 did not nullify vested rights of private respondents and even identified claimants (Molintas and Gumangan), the