DOJ Opinion No. 011, s. 2003

DOJ OPINION NO. 011 , s. 2003 March 13, 2003 Secretary Teresita Quintos-Deles Task Force 63 Vice Chair and Executive Officer Lead Convenor, National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC) Office of the President Malacaang, Manila M a d a m : Subject herein is your letter requesting this Department to submit a categorical answer to the query as to whether there is any legal impediment to the implementation of Presidential Proclamation No. 310 1 . It is stated that on January 7, 2003, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Proclamation No. 310 segregating 670 hectares from the campus of the Central Mindanao University (CMU) for the use and settlement of the Manobos of Musuan, Bukidnon. You state that "[t]he initiative of the President, to address a decades-long land conflict under the principles of genuine asset reform and social justice, was guided by DOJ Opinion No. 78 series of 2002". It appears, however, that the Executive Secretary, citing "the need to further validate certain matters", temporarily suspended the implementation of Proclamation No. 310 through a Memorandum issued on February 17, 2003. It is gathered that the instant request, which we were made to understand had the prior clearance from the Executive Secretary, was prompted by the need to assist the Task Force and the Executive in the soonest implementation of the Proclamation and resolution of the land conflict. Opinion No. 78, s. 2002, of this Department issued upon the request of that Office for an advice on the fastest legal means that will be given to the President to immediately secure claims of the Manobo communities. In response to said request, we gave the advice that: ". . . the President, pursuant to the provisions of Section 14[1], Chapter 4, Book 3, of the Administrative Code of 1987, could issue a Proclamation segregating a certain portion of the CMU reservation established under Proclamation No. 476 and reserve the same for and settlement of the Manobo-Talaandig community and other indigenous peoples, subject to the provisions of R.A. No. 8371, otherwise known as the 'Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1987'". The issuance of subject Proclamation is consistent with the constitutional mandate that the State "shall protect the rights of the indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands to ensure their economic, social and cultural well-being" 2 and R.A. No. 8371, otherwise known as the "The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997", which mandates the State to, among others, adopt and implement measures to protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs) to their ancestral domains. We reiterate our view expressed in Opinion No. 78, s. 2002, which pertinently states: ". . . the original certificates of title issued in favor of CMU cannot and should not negate the rights, if any, of the indigenous community over the subject properties. The phrase 'subject to private rights, if any there be' could be interpreted as a recognition that Proclamation No. 476 may have included lands belonging to private parties, and accordingly respects their rights thereto. This view is strengthened by the fact that some 321 hectares had already been segregated from the 3,401 hectares originally granted to accommodate the claims of private individuals, among them, the Bukidnon-Manobos." (Emphasis supplied) The claims of persons who have settled on, occupied, and improved land afterward included in a reservation are considered worthy of protection and are usually respected (73 C.J.S. 720). Section 7 of R.A. No. 8371 clearly states that the rights of ownership and possession of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains shall be recognized and respected. Proclamation No. 310 merely recognizes the rights of the ICCs/IPs settled on and occupying the portions of lands claimed as their ancestral domains. Moreover, one of the attributes of ownership is the power to dispose. Without such power, there is no absolute ownership. A reading of Proclamation No. 476, s. 1958 readily shows that CMU has no power to dispose of the subject property. In fact, it is apparent from the language of Proclamation No. 476 that only the administration of the properties were transferred to CMU. Equally clear is the condition that the reservation of subject properties in favor of CMU is made subject to "future classification by the Bureau of Forestry". Even the "utilization, removal and disposal of timber and other forest products therein" is made subject to the conditions that they will be in accordance with "the provisions of the Forest and Internal Revenue Laws and Regulations". We are not aware of any amendment to Proclamation No. 476, s. 1958 giving CMU the power to dispose of its properties. Thus, it cannot be said that the government relinquished its ownership over the properties reserved for 3 , and subsequently titled in favor of CMU (formerly Mindanao Agricultural College). A reserved land is a "[p]ublic" land that has been withheld or kept back from sale or disposition. However, the land remains absolute property of the government . The government does not part with its title by reserving them (lands), but simply gives notice to all the world that it desires them for a certain purpose. Absolute disposition of land is not implied from reservation, it merely means a withdrawal of a specified portion of the public domain from disposal under the land laws and the appropriation thereof, for the time being, to some particular use or purposes of the general government. . . .. 4 In the case of Treasurer-Assessor vs. University of the Philippines 5 , the Supreme Court held that the University of the Philippines is exempt from the payment of real property tax saying that: "The University of the Philippines is an instrumentality of the government of the Republic of the Philippines, performing a governmental function, and the property it possesses and administers, through its governing body which is the Board of Regents, is the property of the government . The Basilan Land Grant is a government property and as such it is exempt from the payment of real property tax." (Emphasis supplied) In holding that the U.P. property is a government property, the Supreme Court cited the following decisions of the courts of the different states of the United States, to wit: "In the case of Walsh vs . University of Texas, 169, 8, W. 2d. 993, where the Court of Civil Appeals of Texas held: 'The University and the Board of Regents are institutions of the State, and neither has any existence independent of the State . The petition makes perfectly clear that there is no effort to sue the named defendant as individual. Property belonging to the University of Texas is the property of the State . York vs . Alley, Tex. Civ. Apl. 258, W. 2d. 193, writ refused . . .' In the case of People vs . Brooks, 194 N.W. 602, the Supreme Court of Michigan said: '. . . While it is true that the Regents of the University of Michigan, more commonly called the 'board of regents,' is a separate entity, independent of the state as to the management and control of the University and its property, it is nevertheless a department of the State government, created by the Constitution to perform state functions, and the real estate which it holds or acquired is public property belonging to the state, held by the corporation in trust for the purposes of the University, which are public purposes.' See Auditor General vs . Regents, 83 Mich. 468, 47 N.W. 440, 10 LRA 376. In the case of Coleman, et al . vs . Whipple, et al . , 2 Sc. 2d. 566, the Supreme Court of Mississippi said: 'The Act of February 28, 1944, by which the University of Mississippi was created, designated certain individuals as trustees and constituted them and their successors as a body politic to be known as 'The University of Mississippi', such trustees were not such as defined by the law of trusts. They were the managing board or head of the University, and then and now constitute the University of Mississippi operated by the State through its legislature which, under its act of creation (Sec. 5) retains the right to repeal the entire act; its property is owned by the State and itself. State vs . Vicksburg & N.B . R . Co .; 51 Miss. 361, 365; Oklahoma, etc., College v . Willis, 6 Okl. 593, 52 P. 921, 40 L.R.A. 677; McDonald vs . University of Kentucky, 225, Ky 205, 5 S.W. 2d. 1046; University of Woltchy, 43 S.C. 257; Trustees of University of Alabama vs . Winston, 5 Stw. & P., Ala., 17; Bart vs . Houston, 23 Ga. 506.' In People vs . Barrett (46 N. W. 2d 951), the Supreme Court of Illinois held: '. . . Though the state has created a body corporate to control the University of Illinois, yet the state retains the power of selecting trustees, and may through other agents than the trustees, sell and dispose of the property of the institution or change its charter as the legislature may direct. The property of the University of Illinois though held by the Board of Trustees, belongs to the state . People vs . Board of Trustees, 283 Ill. 494, 119 N. B. 595; Spalding vs . People, 172 Ill. 45, 49 G. B. 903; Board of Trustees vs . Chaspalga County, 76 Ill. 184; Thomas vs . (Board of Trustees of Illinois) Industrial University, 71 Ill. 310.' (Emphasis supplied . ) While original certificates of title over subject properties may have been issued in the name of CMU, it is clear that the CMU holds such titles for and in behalf of the real owner, the Republic of the Philippines. Even the Supreme Court has recognized the fact that CMU is an agricultural educational institution owned and run by the state . . . . 6 In fact, CMU, like all the other state universities, continues to be largely subsidized by the national government. The foregoing considered, we submit that no legal impediment exists in the implementation of Proclamation No. 310. There must, however, be a strict determination of the validity of the claims in order that the lands established as a reservation for the use and settlement of the ICCs/IPs under the subject Proclamation will be made available only to the legitimate beneficiaries. Please be guided accordingly. Very truly yours, (SGD.) SIMEON A. DATUMANONG Secretary Footnotes 1. ESTABLISHING A RESERVATION FOR THE USE AND SETTLEMENT OF THE MEMBERS OF THE INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES/INDIGENOUS PEOPLES (ICCs/IPs) IN BARANGAY MUSUAN, MUNICIPALITY OF MARAMAG, PROVINCE OF BUKIDNON, ISLAND OF MINDANAO, PHILIPPINES, AND FOR THIS PURPOSE OF WITHDRAWING SIX MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND (6,700,000) SQUARE METERS OF THE RESERVATION ESTABLISHED IN FAVOR OF THE MINDANAO AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE (NOW CENTRAL MINDANAO UNIVERSITY) UNDER PROCLAMATION NO. 476 DATED JANUARY 16, 1958). 2. Section 9, Article XII, 1987 Constitution. 3. See Proclamation No. 476, s. 1958 (RESERVING FOR THE MINDANAO AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE SITE PURPOSES CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN SITUATED IN THE BARRIO OF MUSUAN, MUNICIPALITY OF MARAMAG, PROVINCE OF BUKIDNON, ISLAND OF MINDANAO). 4. National Development Company vs. Cebu City, 215 SCRA 382 (1992). 5. 38 SCRA 509 (1971). 6. Central Mindanao University vs. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board , 215 SCRA 86; 88 (1992).