Download The Evolution of Land Ownership and Resource Extraction in the Philippines and more Study notes Social Sciences in PDF only on Docsity!
UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS
College of Arts and Sciences SOC SCI 102N (Philippine Culture, Heritage and Indigenous Communities) Unit 5: Colonial Land Use Policies Topic 1: Colonial laws, jurisprudence, and doctrines Objectives: At the end of the lesson, students are expected to:
- develop an awareness and understanding of how the colonial land use policies dispossessed and marginalized the indigenous peoples particularly the Cordillera IPs
- Point out the effects of colonial land policies to the existing national land policies of the Philippine government
- Describe the conflict between the national land use policies and the indigenous concept of land and resource management
- Compare and contrast the adaptive mechanisms of selected IPs to the government’s land use policies
- Evaluate the impact of national land use policies on the indigenous peoples’ livelihood, resource management, and communal life Key Terms to Understand Maura law Mortgage law Public Land Acts Regalian doctrine Torrens system Part 1 Table 1 Colonial Policies and Legacies that Affect the IPs’ Land Use and Tenure Colonial Policies/Legacies Goals/Salient Features Regalian Doctrine considered the entire Philippine archipelago as property of the Spanish crown except those lands that were titled to private individuals (^) (Hermoso, 1994) Torrens System, or Land Registration Act No. 496, 1902 “all lands be registered with the State, and that private land would be issued titles under the Torrens titling system” (^) (Tapang, 2007) “Privately-owned lands – by individuals and corporations – were registered and titled” (^) (Danguilan-Vitug, 1993) “Land registration system in which the government is the keeper of all land and title records, and a land title serves as a certificate of full, indefeasible, and
valid ownership.” (http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/Torrens- system.html) Philippine Bill of 1902 Set the ceilings on the hectarage of private individuals and corporations may acquire: 16 has. for private individuals and 1,024 has. for corporations. The Torrens system, which the Americans instituted for the registration of lands, did not solve the problem completely. Either they were not aware of the law or if they did, they could not pay the survey cost and other fees required in applying for a Torrens title. http://www.dar.gov.ph Land Registration Act of 1902 (Act No. 496) “declared all lands subject to the Torrens system of formal registration of land title and empowered the State to issue to any legitimate claimant secure proof of title over a parcel of land. This system turned land into a commodity that could be traded by the exchange of a piece of paper” (http://arizonajournal.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/11/Molintas.pdf) Commonwealth Act 141 (Public Land Act) … the Director of Lands shall have direct executive control of the survey, classification, lease, sale or any other form of concession or disposition and management of the lands of the public domain, and his decisions as to questions of fact shall be conclusive when approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce. (C.A. No. 141, sec.
… President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, shall from time to time classify the lands of the public domain into — (a) Alienable or disposable; (b) Timber, and (c) Mineral lands, and may at any time and in a like manner transfer such lands from one class to another, for the purposes of their administration and disposition (C.A. No. 141, sec. 6) Commonwealth Act No. 137 Section 3. All mineral lands of the public domain and minerals belonging to the State, and their disposition, exploitation, development, or utilization, shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations, or associations, at least 60% of the capital of which is owned by such citizens, … Section 4. The ownership and the right to the use of land for agricultural, industrial, commercial, residential, or for any purpose other than mining does not include the ownership of, nor the right to extract or utilize, the minerals which may be found on or under the surface. Section 5. The ownership of, and the right to extract and utilize, the mineral included within all areas for which public agricultural land patents are granted are excluded and excepted from all such patents. Section6. The ownership of, and the right to extract and utilize, the minerals included within all areas for which Torrens titles are granted are excluded and excepted from all such titles.
The colonial land use policy that has a great impact on the indigenous land use system is the Regalian Doctrine. The following is Puno’s (Isagani Cruz v. Secretary of Environment, 2000 ) discussion of the development of the Regalian Doctrine in the Philippine legal system. A. The Laws of the Indies The capacity of the State to own or acquire property is the state's power of dominium. This was the foundation for the early Spanish decrees embracing the feudal theory of jura regalia. The "Regalian Doctrine" or jura regalia is a Western legal concept that was first introduced by the Spaniards into the country through the Laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas. The Laws of the Indies, i.e., more specifically, Law 14, Title 12, Book 4 of the Novisima Recopilacion de Leyes de las Indias , set the policy of the Spanish Crown with respect to the Philippine Islands in the following manner: We, having acquired full sovereignty over the Indies, and all lands, territories, and possessions not heretofore ceded away by our royal predecessors, or by us, or in our name, still pertaining to the royal crown and patrimony, it is our will that all lands which are held without proper and true deeds of grant be restored to us as they belong to us, in order that after reserving before all what to us or to our viceroys, audiencias , and governors may seem necessary for public squares, ways, pastures, and commons in those places which are peopled, taking into consideration not only their present condition, but also their future and their probable increase, and after distributing to the natives what may be necessary for tillage and pasturage, confirming them in what they now have and giving them more if necessary, all the rest of said lands may remain free and unencumbered for us to dispose of as we may wish. We therefore order and command that all viceroys and presidents of pretorial courts designate at such time as shall to them seem most expedient, a suitable period within which all possessors of tracts, farms, plantations, and estates shall exhibit to them and to the court officers appointed by them for this purpose, their title deeds thereto. And those who are in possession by virtue of proper deeds and receipts, or by virtue of just prescriptive right shall be protected, and all the rest shall be restored to us to be disposed of at our will. The Philippines passed to Spain by virtue of "discovery" and conquest. Consequently, all lands became the exclusive patrimony and dominion of the Spanish Crown. The Spanish Government took charge of distributing the lands by issuing royal grants and concessions to Spaniards, both military and civilian. Private land titles could only be acquired from the government either by purchase or by the various modes of land grant from the Crown. The Laws of the Indies were followed by the Ley Hipotecaria , or the Mortgage Law of 1893. The Spanish Mortgage Law provided for the systematic registration of titles and deeds as well as possessory claims. The law sought to register and tax lands pursuant to the Royal Decree of
- The Royal Decree of 1894 , or the " Maura Law ," was partly an amendment of the Mortgage Law as well as the Laws of the Indies, as already amended by previous orders and decrees. This was the last Spanish land law promulgated in the Philippines. It required the "adjustment" or registration of all agricultural lands, otherwise the lands shall revert to the state. Four years later, by the Treaty of Paris of December 10, 1898, Spain ceded to the government of the United States all rights, interests and claims over the national territory of the Philippine Islands. In 1903, the United States colonial government, through the Philippine Commission, passed Act No. 926, the first Public Land Act. All lands lost by the old barangays in the process of pueblo organization as well as all lands not assigned to them and the pueblos, were now declared to be crown lands or realengas , belonging to the Spanish king. It was from the realengas that land grants were made to non-Filipinos. The abrogation of the Filipinos' ancestral rights in land and the introduction of the concept of public domain were the most immediate fundamental results of Spanish colonial theory and law. The concept that the Spanish king was the owner of everything of value in the Indies or colonies was imposed on the natives, and the natives were stripped of their ancestral rights to land.
B. Valenton v. Murciano In 1904, under the American regime, this Court decided the case of Valenton v. Murciano. Valenton resolved the question of which is the better basis for ownership of land: long-time occupation or paper title. Plaintiffs had entered into peaceful occupation of the subject land in 1860. Defendant's predecessor-in-interest, on the other hand, purchased the land from the provincial treasurer of Tarlac in 1892. The lower court ruled against the plaintiffs on the ground that they had lost all rights to the land by not objecting to the administrative sale. Plaintiffs appealed the judgment, asserting that their 30-year adverse possession, as an extraordinary period of prescription in the Partidas and the Civil Code, had given them title to the land as against everyone, including the State; and that the State, not owning the land, could not validly transmit it. The Court, speaking through Justice Willard, decided the case on the basis of "those special laws which from earliest time have regulated the disposition of the public lands in the colonies." The question posed by the Court was: "Did these special laws recognize any right of prescription as against the State as to these lands; and if so, to what extent was it recognized?" Prior to 1880, the Court said, there were no laws specifically providing for the disposition of land in the Philippines. However, it was understood that in the absence of any special law to govern a specific colony, the Laws of the Indies would be followed. Indeed, in the Royal Order of July 5, 1862, it was decreed that until regulations on the subject could be prepared, the authorities of the Philippine Islands should follow strictly the Laws of the Indies, the Ordenanza of the Intendentes of 1786 , and the Royal Cedula of 1754. Quoting the preamble of Law 14, Title 12, Book 4 of the Recopilacion de Leyes de las Indias , the court interpreted it as follows: In the preamble of this law there is, as is seen, a distinct statement that all those lands belong to the Crown which have not been granted by Philip, or in his name, or by the kings who preceded him. This statement excludes the idea that there might be lands not so granted, that did not belong to the king. It excludes the idea that the king was not still the owner of all ungranted lands , because some private person had been in the adverse occupation of them. By the mandatory part of the law all the occupants of the public lands are required to produce before the authorities named, and within a time to be fixed by them, their title papers. And those who had good title or showed prescription were to be protected in their holdings. It is apparent that it was not the intention of the law that mere possession for a length of time should make the possessors the owners of the land possessed by them without any action on the part of the authorities. The preamble stated that all those lands which had not been granted by Philip, or in his name, or by the kings who preceded him, belonged to the Crown. For those lands granted by the king, the decree provided for a system of assignment of such lands. It also ordered that all possessors of agricultural land should exhibit their title deed, otherwise, the land would be restored to the Crown. The Royal Cedula of October 15, 1754 reinforced the Recopilacion when it ordered the Crown's principal sub-delegate to issue a general order directing the publication of the Crown's instructions: xxx to the end that any and all persons who, since the year 1700, and up to the date of the promulgation and publication of said order, shall have occupied royal lands, whether or not xxx cultivated or tenanted, may xxx appear and exhibit to said subdelegates the titles and patents by virtue of which said lands are occupied. xxx. Said subdelegates will at the same time warn the parties interested that in case of their failure to present their title deeds within the term designated, without a just and valid reason therefor, they will be deprived of and evicted from their lands, and they will be granted to others. On June 25, 1880, the Crown adopted regulations for the adjustment of lands "wrongfully occupied" by private individuals in the Philippine Islands. Valenton construed these regulations
D. The 1935 Philippine Constitution The Regalian doctrine was enshrined in the 1935 Constitution. One of the fixed and dominating objectives of the 1935 Constitutional Convention was the nationalization and conservation of the natural resources of the country. There was an overwhelming sentiment in the Convention in favor of the principle of state ownership of natural resources and the adoption of the Regalian doctrine. State ownership of natural resources was seen as a necessary starting point to secure recognition of the state's power to control their disposition, exploitation, development, or utilization. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention very well knew that the concept of State ownership of land and natural resources was introduced by the Spaniards, however, they were not certain whether it was continued and applied by the Americans. To remove all doubts, the Convention approved the provision in the Constitution affirming the Regalian doctrine. Thus, the 1935 Constitution, in Section 1 of Article XIII on "Conservation and Utilization of Natural Resources," reads as follows: Sec. 1. All agricultural, timber, and mineral lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, and other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State, and their disposition, exploitation, development, or utilization shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens, subject to any existing right, grant, lease, or concession at the time of the inauguration of the Government established under this Constitution. Natural resources, with the exception of public agricultural land, shall not be alienated, and no license, concession, or lease for the exploitation, development, or utilization of any of the natural resources shall be granted for a period exceeding twenty-five years, except as to water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, in which cases beneficial use may be the measure and the limit of the grant. The 1935 Constitution did not carry any policy on the non-Christian Filipinos. The raging issue then was the conservation of the national patrimony for the Filipinos. In 1957, the Philippine Congress passed R.A. No. 1888 , an "Act to effectuate in a more rapid and complete manner the economic, social, moral and political advancement of the non- Christian Filipinos or national cultural minorities and to render real, complete, and permanent the integration of all said national cultural minorities into the body politic, creating the Commission on National Integration charged with said functions." The law called for a policy of integration of indigenous peoples into the Philippine mainstream and for this purpose created the Commission on National Integration (CNI). The CNI was given, more or less, the same task as the BNCT during the American regime. The post-independence policy of integration was like the colonial policy of assimilation understood in the context of a guardian- ward relationship. The policy of assimilation and integration did not yield the desired result. Like the Spaniards and Americans, government attempts at integration met with fierce resistance. Since World War II, a tidal wave of Christian settlers from the lowlands of Luzon and the Visayas swamped the highlands and wide open spaces in Mindanao. Knowledge by the settlers of the Public Land Acts and the Torrens system resulted in the titling of several ancestral lands in the settlers' names. With government initiative and participation, this titling displaced several indigenous peoples from their lands. Worse, these peoples were also displaced by projects undertaken by the national government in the name of national development. The preceding discussion is reiterated by Molintas ( 2015 ): The superimposition of colonial laws started with a legal fiction – the Regalian Doctrine – that declared arrogantly that the Crown of Spain owned all lands. This would later become the “theoretical bedrock upon which Philippine land laws were based... .” This signaled the start of the undermining of indigenous peoples’ concepts of land use and land rights (It should be
noted, however, that many indigenous peoples were able to retain their tribal sovereignty so that their land laws exist independent of Spanish promulgated land laws.). Between 1523 and 1646, it is said that at least twenty-one laws related to the Philippines were enacted by Spain. Royal decrees and various memoranda would later follow. The Spanish introduced laws that essentially contradicted and even denied customary concepts of land use and ownership. The royal decrees of October 15, 1754 called for titling of lands on the basis of “long and continuous possession.” In support of this, the Royal Cedula Circular of 1798 and the Royal Decrees of 1880 followed. By July 1893 the Spanish Mortgage Law that provided for the systematic registration of land titles and deeds was put into effect. As expected, many did not avail themselves of this opportunity, so in 1894 the Maura Law was issued. The Maura Law is said to be the last land law under Spain. Article 4 of the Maura Law denied and contradicted customary laws of land ownership declaring that any lands not titled in 1880 “will revert back to the state.” This meant that landowners were given only a year within which to secure title. After the deadline, untitled lands were deemed forfeited. The Maura Law also reiterated that “all pueblo lands were protected lands and could not be alienated because they belonged to the King.” … The Regalian Doctrine (Jura Regalia or Spanish Royal Law) remained in favor throughout the American administration of the Philippines from 1898 to 1945, providing the American government, like its Spanish predecessor, legal justification for centralizing and controlling the islands’ natural resources. The Regalian Doctrine, in effect, endured as land laws were passed which dispossessed the indigenous peoples of all claims to their lands. Indeed, the Treaty of Paris in 1898 expressly stated that “all immovable properties which in conformity with law, belong to the Crown of Spain” and were to be ceded and relinquished to the new colonial master. To further strengthen the colonizer’s hold over the islands’ resources, the Public Land Act was enacted in 1902, giving a mandate to the American government to expropriate all public lands. It subjected all lands to the Torrens system, a proof of land title, thereby leading to the commodification of land resources. The Philippine Commission Act No. 178 of 1903 followed. This ordered that all unregistered lands would become part of the public domain , and that only the State had the authority to classify or exploit the same. Two years later, the Mining Law of 1905 was legislated. This gave the Americans the right to acquire public land for mining purposes and revealed the Americans’ goal of extracting resources from indigenous territories. In the same year, the Land Registration Act of 1905 institutionalized the Torrens Titling system as the sole basis of land ownership in the Philippines. The Torrens System of land titling was patterned after the land registration law of the State of Massachusetts, U.S., which in turn was copied from the Australian model. (Sir Richard Torrens of South Australia originally conceived the idea of land transfer of ownership by easy alienation of land.) Any lands not registered under the Spanish colonial government were declared public lands owned and administered by the state. By virtue of the Public Land Acts of 1913, 1919, and 1925, Mindanao and all other fertile lands that the State considered unoccupied, unreserved, or otherwise unappropriated public lands became available to homesteaders and corporations, despite the fact that there were indigenous people living on these lands. Still, in 1918, the Public Land Act No. 2874 was passed providing for the claiming and registration of lands through a free patent system. This law contained the restriction that “free patents and certificates shall not include nor convey title to any metal or mineral deposits which are to remain the property of the government.” In 1929, Proclamation No. 217 declared 81.8% of the total land area of the Cordillera as the Central Cordillera Forest Reserve. This rendered the indigenous peoples “‘squatters in their own land’” according to formal state laws. Forest lands are inalienable and non-disposable. In 1935, the Mining Act banned indigenous mining activities; while the Commonwealth Act 137 granted timber and water rights within mining claims for the development and operation of
