G.R. No. 223808 - Heirs of Pineda vs. Office of the President

Case Summary (G.R. No. 223808)

Factual Background

In 1991, Aida Pineda filed an application for an ancestral land claim over a tract in Baguio City with a total area of 49,645 square meters. The application was made pursuant to DENR Special Order No. 31, series of 1990, which created a Special Task Force on Ancestral Land Claims tasked to receive, identify, evaluate, and delineate claims in the Cordillera Administrative Region and issue appropriate land titles after processing.

Pineda caused a survey of the land from November 12 to 19, 1991. The Regional Surveys Division of the DENR approved the survey on March 31, 1992. The Survey Plan SWO CAR-000065 indicated that the claimed area was “a portion of Lot No. 1, PSU-223647, as surveyed for Teofilo Pilando covered by Civil Res. Case 1, GLRO Rec. No. 211.”

On June 24, 1993, the DENR issued four Certificates of Ancestral Land Claim—Bg-0032, Bg-0033, Bg-0034, and Bg-0035—covering 61,673 square meters of land located in Residential Section “J,” Loakan, Baguio City, in favor of Pineda.

Heirs of Pilando’s Petition for Annulment

On August 22, 1996, the Heirs of Teofilo Pilando, Sr. filed a petition for Annulment of the Certificates of Ancestral Land Claim before the DENR. They claimed a prior right traced to Teofilo Pilando, Sr., a member of the Kankanaey tribe, who allegedly purchased a 90,904-square-meter parcel from Talin Simsim of the Ibaloi tribe in 1956 or 1957 and later introduced improvements.

They further alleged that Pilando, in anticipation of securing a Torrens title, caused the survey of the land, which was approved by the Bureau of Lands on October 13, 1966, and that he declared the land for tax purposes starting 1967. The Heirs of Pilando maintained that their predecessor acquired title and possession by operation of law and that their long possession converted the land into private property.

Petitioners denied the allegations and asserted that Pilando’s claim was fraudulent.

DENR Proceedings and Recall of the CALCs

In a February 27, 2007 Decision, the DENR ordered the recall of the CALCs issued in favor of Pineda and ordered the segregation of the claim of the Heirs of Pilando. The DENR reasoned that the recommendations of the Special Task Force could not be held binding because those actions were merely in anticipation of the IPRA, which expressly excluded Baguio City from its operation. The DENR also concluded that the Heirs of Pilando established a prior right as long-time occupants of a public land.

The DENR’s dispositive portion ordered the recall of the CALCs in Pineda’s name and directed the Heirs of Pilando to file the appropriate public land application within sixty (60) days from finality, or they would be deemed to have waived their rights.

Office of the President: Affirmance of Recall and the CALCs’ Lack of Legal Basis

On March 30, 2011, the Office of the President affirmed the DENR Decision. It held that the CALCs issued in 1993 had no legal basis before the passage of the IPRA and that, even after the Act’s enactment, the Baguio City exemption applied. The Office of the President ruled that the Heirs of Pilando and their predecessors-in-interest were deemed to have acquired, by operation of law, a right to a government grant because they allegedly had open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation.

It also held that the CALCs issued to Pineda were void because the Special Task Force had no authority to issue them.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

The Heirs of Pineda appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Office of the President and DENR. The Court of Appeals held that the CALCs issued were provisional and did not attain permanency because the IPRA expressly excluded Baguio City from its scope. It also ruled that DENR had primary administrative jurisdiction over the petition for cancellation because the petition had been filed prior to the enactment of the IPRA and the DENR had issued the certificates.

The Court of Appeals further held that petitioners failed to show grave abuse of discretion by the Office of the President and thus the factual findings affirmed by the Office of the President deserved respect.

A motion for reconsideration was denied in a March 2, 2016 Resolution.

Petition to the Supreme Court and Core Issue

In the present petition, petitioners contended that the Court of Appeals disregarded native title despite evidence of full possession and ownership “as far back as memory reaches,” and they argued that they had vested rights supported by the IPRA and the Baguio City charter, while respondents lacked title or pending land applications.

Private respondents maintained that the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed because the Office of the President’s ruling was final and because it merely affirmed DENR’s exercise of jurisdiction. They also argued that DENR’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and in accord with law; that petitioners were denied no due process; and that the CALCs were void for lack of authority. They relied on the rule that Baguio City’s exemption prevented reliance on the IPRA unless there was recognition of prior land rights and titles through processes before the IPRA’s effectivity. They also invoked the factual dispute as to possession and ownership.

The Supreme Court framed the issue as whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the recall of the CALCs issued in favor of petitioners.

Governing Legal Provisions: IPRA Section 78 and Its Effect on Baguio City

The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 78 of the IPRA expressly excludes the City of Baguio from the IPRA’s application. Section 78 provides that Baguio City shall remain governed by its charter and that lands proclaimed as part of its townsite reservation shall remain as such until reclassified by legislation. It also preserves as valid prior land rights and titles recognized and/or acquired through any judicial, administrative, or other processes before the IPRA’s effectivity, while also excluding territories added to Baguio after the IPRA’s effectivity.

To interpret Section 78, the Court relied on Republic v. National Commission on Indigenous Peoples, which construed Section 78 as mandating that Baguio City would not be subject to IPRA provisions, even after IPRA’s enactment, except for recognized exceptions involving prior judicial, administrative, or other processes before IPRA’s effectivity and territories added to the city after the effectivity.

The Court also cited City Government of Baguio v. Atty. Masweng for the proposition that Baguio City is governed by its charter and the exemption from IPRA cannot ipso facto be deduced because IPRA still respects validity of prior land rights and titles recognized or acquired before its effectivity.

CALCs as Non-Conclusive Evidence of Ownership and Lack of a Vested Right

The Supreme Court held that petitioners anchored their claimed right on the CALCs issued by the DENR in 1993 pursuant to Special Order No. 31, series of 1990. The Court treated the CALCs as insufficient to establish a vested ownership right.

It invoked Philippine Economic Zone Authority v. Borreta, where the Court held that a holder of a CALC is only a “mere applicant” and does not acquire a vested right as an owner to exclude the land from other jurisdictional regimes. It further invoked Philippines Economic Zone Authority v. Carantes, reiterating that holders of mere CALCs have rights only as enumerated under DENR DAO No. 02, Series of 1993, limited to peaceful occupation in relation to cultivation, and that nothing grants an act of ownership akin to that of one with a recognized right by virtue of a Certificate of Ancestral Land Title.

The Court found that the same characterization applied to petitioners. It reasoned that the Special Task Force created under Special Order No. 31, series of 1990 was organized to start receiving and processing ancestral land claims including claims within Baguio Townsite, to complete paperwork beforehand so titles could be issued upon enactment of the enabling law. Thus, the Court viewed the CALCs as issued in anticipation of IPRA and not as conclusive title.

The Supreme Court further explained that petitioners still needed to convert the CALCs into certificates of ancestral land title under NCIP Administrative Order No. 2-02, governing conversion of CALCs/CADCs to CADTs/CALTs delineated prior to RA 8371.

Petitioners’ Arguments on Native Title Were Procedurally Improper and Factually Unsubstantiated

The Supreme Court rejected petitioners’ invitation for it to reevaluate evidence and make new factual conclusions. It invoked Rule 45, Section 1, Rules of Court, under which only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari, and factual findings of the appellate courts are generally binding when supported by substantial evidence. Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the case fell within recognized exceptions permitting review of facts.

The Court stated that the dispute over which party enjoyed a more preeminent prior right over the lots was factual and not a proper subject for review under Rule 45. The Court also observed that respondents failed to provide evidence of their land claim in the present case, which left them with the ability to prove their claim in a separate proceeding.

Yet the Court still resolved petitioners’ claims on the merits in light of the controlling legal framework.

Substantive Ruling: Petitioners Failed to Prove Valid Prior Land Rights Recognized Before the IPRA

The Supreme Court relied on the governing law explained in Republic v. National Commission on Indigenous Peoples regarding prior land rights in Baguio City. It tied the analysis to the historic legal regime for Baguio’s townsite reservation and the processes under Act No. 926.

The Court cited that on September 1, 1909, Baguio City was incorporated, and on April 12, 1912, the Baguio Townsite Reservation was established. It explained that Civil Reservation Case No. 1 (GLRO Reserv

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 223808)

The case involved the recall of Certificates of Ancestral Land Claim (CALCs) issued in favor of Aida Pineda (Pineda) and the segregation of the claims of the Heirs of Teofilo Pilando, Sr. (Heirs of Pilando) for land located in Baguio City.
The Supreme Court resolved a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Court of Appeals affirmance of (a) the Office of the President decision and (b) the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) decision recalling the CALCs.

Parties and Procedural Posture

Heirs of Aida Pineda, represented by Ella Pineda Torcedo, filed the petition as petitioners.
The Office of the President, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and “any/all their subordinate, agents, and all other persons acting on its behalf” appeared as respondents.
The Heirs of Teofilo Pilando, Sr. appeared as respondents in opposition to petitioners’ claimed ancestral-land rights.
The petitioners challenged the Court of Appeals decisions that affirmed the Office of the President and the DENR rulings in the recall proceeding.
The Supreme Court identified the sole issue as whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the DENR and Office of the President decisions recalling the CALCs issued to petitioners.

Key Factual Allegations

In 1991, Pineda filed an application for ancestral land claim over a 49,645-square-meter parcel located in Baguio City.
The application proceeded under DENR Special Order No. 31, series of 1990, which created a Special Task Force on Ancestral Land Claims to identify, evaluate, and delineate Cordillera ancestral land claims and issue appropriate titles after processing.
From November 12 to 19, 1991, Pineda caused the survey of the land, which the Regional Surveys Division of DENR approved on March 31, 1992.
The Survey Plan SWO CAR-000065 described the claimed area as a portion of a lot indicated as surveyed for Teofilo Pilando covered by Civil Res. Case 1 and GLRO Rec. No. 211.
On June 24, 1993, DENR issued four CALCs in favor of Pineda, specifically Bg-0032, Bg-0033, Bg-0034, and Bg-0035, covering 61,673 square meters of land located at Residential Section “J”, Loakan, Baguio City.
On August 22, 1996, the Heirs of Pilando filed a petition for annulment of the CALCs before DENR, asserting a prior right.
The Heirs of Pilando traced their asserted right from Teofilo Pilando, Sr., who allegedly purchased a 90,904-square-meter parcel from Talin Simsim in 1956 or 1957 and introduced improvements thereafter.
The Heirs of Pilando further claimed that Pilando, in anticipation of securing a Torrens title, caused a survey approved by the Bureau of Lands on October 13, 1966, and that he declared the land for taxation starting in 1967.
The Heirs of Pilando argued that the predecessor acquired ipso jure title and possession and that long possession converted the land to private property.
In their answer, the Heirs of Pineda asserted that Pilando’s claim was fraudulent.
Petitioners later anchored their right on the CALCs issued to them under DENR’s 1990 Special Order process and insisted that their evidence established ownership and possession “as far back as memory reaches.”

Administrative and Appellate History

In its February 27, 2007 Decision, DENR ordered the recall of the CALCs issued in favor of Pineda and the segregation of the Heirs of Pilando’s claim.
DENR explained that the Special Task Force recommendations could not bind the parties because the actions were treated as anticipation of the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA), which expressly excluded Baguio City.
DENR found that the Heirs of Pilando established a prior right as “long-time occupants of a public land.”
DENR’s dispositive order recalled the CALCs Bg-0032, Bg-0033, Bg-0034, and Bg-0035 and directed that the Pilando claim covered by Psu-223647 be segregated, with a requirement to file the appropriate public land application within sixty (60) days.
In its March 30, 2011 Decision, the Office of the President affirmed DENR and ruled that the 1993 CALCs had no legal basis even after the enactment of the IPRA in Baguio City’s case.
The Office of the President held that the Heirs of Pilando were deemed to have acquired, by operation of law, a right to a government grant due to open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation.
The Office of the President also held that the CALCs issued to the Heirs of Pineda were void because the Special Task Force allegedly had no authority to issue them.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Office of the President’s decision and denied the motion for reconsideration in a March 2, 2016 Resolution.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the CALCs were provisional and did not attain permanency because IPRA expressly excluded Baguio City.
The Court of Appeals also ruled that DENR had primary administrative jurisdiction over the cancellation petition at the time it was filed because the petition predated IPRA and because DENR issued the CALCs.
The Court of Appeals found no grave abuse of discretion by the Office of the President and thus accorded respect to the factual findings affirmed below.
The Supreme Court considered the Court of Appeals rulings and denied the petition.

Statutory and Doctrinal Framework

The Supreme Court relied on **Section 78 of Republic Act No. 8371 (IPRA), which contains a special provision exempting the City of Baguio from IPRA’s application.
Section 78 mandated that Baguio City “shall remain to be governed by its Charter,” and it preserved lands proclaimed as part of the townsite reservation until reclassified by Congress.
Section 78 expressly recognized that prior land rights and titles recognized and/or acquired through judicial, administrative, or other processes before IPRA’s effectivity remain valid.
The Court emphasized that, under Republic v. National Commission on Indigenous Peoples, Section 78 conclusively provides Baguio’s charter governs determination of land rights in Baguio City, not IPRA.
The Court also emphasized that IPRA does not generally authorize the NCIP to issue ancestral land titles in Baguio City, with the only recognized exceptions under Section 78.
The Court cited City Government of Baguio v. Atty. Masweng for the proposition that Baguio City’s exemption cannot be deduced ipso facto from the IPRA law itself because IPRA still concedes the validity of prior land rights recognized or acquired before IPRA’s effectivity.
The Court highlighted that petitioners’ invocation of the CALCs did not satisfy Section 78’s requirement of valid prior land rights and titles recognized or acquired through judicial, administrative, or other pr