The Supreme Court has affirmed a 10-year-old decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) that denied a petition of some fifteen members of the Ibaloi and Kankana-ey tribes of Benguet to reverse a ruling of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) that upheld the issuance of certificates of ancestral land title (CALT) to an Ibaloi elder in 2007.
In a 24-page decision dated January 16, 2023 released only last week and penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the SC denied the petition for review on certiorari filed by the supposed claimants involving the certificates of ancestral land title covering almost 77,585 square meters of land located in Pinsao, Baguio City issued by the NCIP to Maximo Bugnay Sr., who has been elected as the Indigenous Peoples Mandatory Representative of Baguio City this year.
The petition was filed by Gabriel Diclas, Antonia Dianson, Carlos Ansis, Joseph Soypaan, Corazon Soypaan, Rita Biador, Merto Saldet, Imelda Ingosan, Myrna Basanes, Grace Solano, Marcelo Catanes, Valentino Sec-open, Dixson Anches, Carlos Anches Jr. and Francis Que, Jr. after the CA affirmed on April and October 2013 the rulings of the NCIP denying their petition to cancel the ancestral land titles issued to Bugnay.
The petitioners claimed to be the owners and long-time possessors of the ancestral land covered by certificates of ancestral land title issued in favor of Bugnay.
Some of them alleged they are the descendants of a certain Bilag, one of the pioneer Ibaloi families and was a claimant of ancestral lands in Baguio City. They also claimed that the matriarch of the Bilag clan inherited portions of the disputed parcels of land from Bilag, who they said has occupied these parcels of land since time immemorial.
In their petitions before the NCIP and the CA, Diclas and co-petitioners said Bugnay committed fraud in securing his certificate of ancestral land titles through conflicting representations in his application.
They also said the CA erred in ruling that they, the petitioners, failed to establish that they have acquired a vested right over the subject parcels of land, that Bugnay did not comply with the requirement of publication when he applied for recognition of his ancestral land claim at the NCIP and that Bugnay failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of delineation and recognition of ancestral lands, resulting in a violation of the petitioners’ right to due process.
In denying the petition, the high tribunal relied on the findings of the CA, which upon review affirmed the decision of NCIP in its ruling in April 2013 and in its denial of the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in October 2013.
The CA ruled that Diclas et al. failed to prove their vested rights over the parcels of land as demonstrated by their failure to comply with the requirements for a townsite sales application.
“While petitioners assert a better right than the respondent (Bugnay), they submitted no evidence before this court to prove their claim of long-time occupation and possession. The supporting documents they allegedly submitted before the NCIP to prove their claim were not attached to the petition for review. Additionally, while they represent to be Bilag’s descendants, no proof confirming this allegation was present,” the Supreme Court also ruled.
As to alleged non-compliance of Bugnay with procedural requirements, the SC also relied on the findings of the Court of Appeals that Bugnay had substantially complied with the requirements for the issuance of his certificates of ancestral land title: he submitted the correct application form, it was accompanied by supporting documents and inspections were conducted before his application was submitted to the NCIP director for evaluation.
The decision also ruled that the petitioners failed to present evidence supporting their claim that the requirements for publication in a newspaper of general publication and posting of the ancestral land claim of Bugnay were not complied with.
“Petitioners again failed to submit before this court evidence to support their contentions. They attached no evidence, documentary or otherwise, to prove respondent’s non-compliance and non-submission. Such being the case, this court has no means to ascertain the truthfulness of their claims,” the decision stressed.
The High Court said: “We are constrained to rely on the factual findings of the Court of Appeals that respondent (Bugnay) had substantially complied with the requirements of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act, negating any violation of petitioners’ (Diclas et al.) right to due process.”
