land tenure stories in central mindanao

Land Tenure Book 1001.indd a 10/1/09 11:18 AM

Land Tenure Stories in Central Mindanao

Copyright © 2009 Local Governance Support Program in ARMM

(LGSPA)

All rights reserved.

The Local Governance Support Program in ARMM (LGSPA)

encourages the use, translation, adaptation and copying of this

material for non-commercial use, with appropriate credit given

to LGSPA.

Although reasonable care has been taken in the preparation of

this manual, neither the publisher nor contributor, nor writer can

accept any liability for any consequences arising from the use

thereof or from any information contained herein.

ISBN 978-971-94065-8-7

Printed and bound in Davao City, Philippines.

Published by:

The Local Governance Support Program in ARMM (LGSPA)

Unit 72 Landco Corporate Centre

J.P. Laurel Avenue, Bajada

8000 Davao City, Philippines

Tel. No. 63 8 2 227 7980-81

www.lgspa.org.ph

Kadtuntaya Foundation, Inc. (KFI)

Ground Floor, Community Training and Resource Center Building

Doña Pilar Street, Vilo Subdivision, Poblacion IV

9600 Cotabato City, Philippines

Tel. No. 63 6 4 421 4222

Fax No. 63 6 4 421 2072

www.kadtun.org

Mediators Network for Sustainable Peace, (MedNet) Inc.

Units 314-316 3/F Llanar Building

#77 Xavierville Avenue, Loyola Heights

1108 Quezon City, Philippines

Tel. No. 63 2 433 3060

Telefax. 63 2 926 3060

Email: [email protected]

Technical Team

Advisory Committee

Guiamel Alim

Atty. Anwar Malang

Marilyn Poitras

Marion Maceda Villanueva

Panel of Reviewers

Atty. Gregorio Andolana

Dr. Cristina Montiel

Prof. Rudy Rodil

Dr. Sukarno Tanggol

Project and Editorial Direction

Myn Garcia

Research Director

Brenda Batistiana

Deputy Research Director

Rachel Aquino-Elogada

Research Coordinator and Facilitator

Madett Gardiola

Writers

Brenda Batistiana

Atty. Nerissa Dalig

Rachel Aquino-Elogada

Edwin Golosino

Marilyn Poitras

Prof. Rudy Rodil

Atty. Charina Sanz Zarate

Legal Researcher

Atty. Nerissa Dalig

Researchers

Dr. Alano T. Kadil

Prof. Rey Danilo C. Lacson

Research Assistants

Anthony Aba

Suharto Amad

Florderick Sanico

Esmeralda Simpal

Sarato Pasante

Rodolfo Pelegrino

Abdulkarin Pigkaulan

Melanio Ulama

Cesar Vergara

Technical Coordination

Joel Dizon

Florderick Sanico

Maya Flaminda J. Vandenbroeck

Editor

Sef Alba Carandang

Mags Z. Maglana

Photography

Bobby Timonera, Cover photos & pp.5,65,75,149

Ted Whitecalf, p.157

Maya Faminda J. Vandenbroeck, p.23

Art Direction and Layout

Jet Hermida, creativejet

This project was undertaken with the fi nancial support of the Government of Canada provided through the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA).

Land Tenure Book 1001.indd b 10/1/09 11:18 AM

storiesLAND TENURE IN Central Mindanao

This research was undertaken by The Kadtuntaya Foundation, Inc. (KFI) in partnership with the Mediators Network for Sustainable Peace, Inc. (MedNet) and the Local Governance Support Program in ARMM (LGSPA)

Land Tenure Book 1001.indd I 10/1/09 11:18 AM

Land Tenure Stories in Central Mindanao

Section 6Canadian Experiences in Indigenous Land Tenure

Conflicts

Section 7

Conclusions and Recommendations

Selected Readings & ReferencesTables 1. Moro, Lumad, Settler Population in the Five Provinces

of South Cotabato, Sarangani, Sultan Kudarat, Maguindanao and Cotabato City, with percentage. 2000 Census

2. Public Land Law and Resettlement3. Resettlement: Case of Cotabato 1918, 1939, 1970

Census

4. Philippine Land Tenure Status, 20045. DAR Land Distribution Accomplishments by

Region, in Hectares 1972-December 2006 6. Number of Issued Public Land Patents (Free

Patent, Miscellaneous Sales and Homestead Patent) from 2003 to 2007

7. Approved CADTs from 2002 to November 15, 2008

8. Lots in Barangay Rangeban Patented to Christian Settlers

9. Positioning Analysis of Statements of Moro and Christian Settlers on the Causes of Conflict in Midsayap and Isulan Land Disputes

10. Positioning Analysis of Statements of Muslims and Christian Settlers on Conflict Resolution in Midsayap and Isulan Land Disputes

11. Conflicting Utterances of the Rajahbuayan Clan and Heirs of Bagumbayan Abpet

Figure Map 1. Mindanao in 1890

158

178

188

7

910

1718

19

21

97

151

152

154

12

Land Tenure Book 1001.indd III 10/1/09 11:18 AM

Land Tenure Stories in Central MindanaoIV

Foreword

Addressing the root causes of confl ict is one of the six

paths which are embodied in the National Peace Plan of

the government. Years of pursuing this comprehensive

policy show how land, invariably defi ned as territory and domain,

is among the core issues which need to be prioritized in the dif-

ferent tracks of the peace process. In the case of Mindanao, the

thorny issue of ancestral domain has made peace e& orts more

tricky. Thus, a thorough analysis and understanding of the com-

plexity of land problems in the south has become imperative.

This land tenure research entitled, Land Tenure Stories in

Central Mindanao, is timely as it provides invaluable material

which can serve as a reference for members of di& erent govern-

ment instruments to craft more e& ective peace strategies in

dealing with tenurial confl icts at both the community level and

the GRP-MILF peace talks. As the study delves into the histori-

cal background of tenure disputes in the areas of Cotabato, Ma-

guindanao and Sultan Kudarat, sharper analysis and awareness

on the current problems can be drawn.

Knowledge of the general land tenure situation is impor-

tant in the generation of appropriate interventions for dispute

resolution, and the study helps in this regard as it outlines the

laws and issuances, as well as the instruments, that govern land

ownership. On the other hand, the social psychological frame-

work which was used to describe competing interests, positions

and possible entry points for confl ict resolution gives a human

face to the dynamics of land tenure confl ict.

It is our hope that e& orts to understand and fi nd solutions to

the land problems in Mindanao will continue until we can truly

say that peace has indeed come to our land.

Ambassador Rafael E. SeguisChairpersonGovernment Peace Panel for Talks with the MILF

Land Tenure Book 1001.indd IV 10/1/09 11:18 AM

Land Tenure Stories in Central Mindanao V

Assalamu Allaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuhul!

The Bangsamoro people have been unwavering in their

quest for justice, freedom and self-determination as a

birthright. The historical struggle that has been waged

at di$ erent fronts is based on the legitimate claim to the home-

land upon which the Muslim Ummah aspires to fl ourish. This

is the premise that has held the MILF accountable to its people

and this is the unchanging foundation of continuing e$ orts to

pursue negotiations for acceptable solutions to the centuries-old

confl ict in Mindanao.

“Land Tenure Stories in Central Mindanao” is laudable in its

factual presentation of events and factors that underpin the

disposession and marginalization of the Bangsamoro in their

own land. As long as this injustice is not rectifi ed, much less

acknowledged, the confl ict will persist despite all the e$ orts to

improve the tenurial instruments and status of the di$ erent

protagonists as exemplifi ed in the narratives contained in the

study.

In the end, it can be said that the specifi c land confl icts occuring

in the communities among Moro, IP and settler populations, not

only in the provinces covered by the study, cannot be dissociated

from the struggle for the right to self-determination that has

been led by the MILF. The study has in fact succeeded in relating

the issues of land tenure to the larger need of recognizing iden-

tity and systems that defi ne the Bangsamoro as a people.

Strategies to address the recommendations that have been put

forward in the concluding chapter of the study should therefore

be explored at the levels of policy and implementation and in

cooperation with the di$ erent sectors of Mindanao. The MILF

is of the fi rm belief that all these can only be achieved in a spirit

of genuine dialogue and sincerity among the key players in the

peace process.

Ghazali Ja’afarVice Chair on Political A" airsCentral Committee, Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF)

Land Tenure Book 1001.indd V 10/1/09 11:18 AM

VI

Land Tenure Book 1001.indd VI 10/1/09 11:18 AM

VII

PrefaceT

he Kadtuntaya Foundation, Inc. (KFI), the Mediators’

Network for Sustainable Peace (MEDNet), Inc. and the

Local Governance Support Program in the Autonomous

Region in Muslim Mindanao (LGSPA) are privileged to partner

together in undertaking this important policy research. In con-

sultation with civil society organizations as well as government

bodies, land tenure was identifi ed as among the major causes

of land confl ict in Central Mindanao. But when further probed,

it was recognized that this dimension of land confl ict was only

one part of the problem. This, combined with the other aspects

of culture, history, legal systems and political dimensions were

ascertained to be at the very root of the problem and must be

considered when studying and making conclusions.

“Land Tenure Stories in Central Mindanao” uses multiple lenses

to study land confl icts and attempts to unpack and make sense

of the complex issues that surround land disputes experienced

by the Moro, Christian and Indigenous People. The complex-

ity necessitated the tapping of di+ erent perspectives and

disciplines to probe the nuances pertaining to land, land use,

property rights and agrarian-based institutions in Bangsamoro,

Christian and indigenous communities.

Through an analysis of specifi c cases representing di+ erent

typologies of property ownership and tenurial arrangements,

the cultural, economic, political and social psychological

dimensions of land issues were distilled. A historical account

of the signifi cant events and issuances of land laws that have

led to the current disputes on land provided a comprehensive

background for a deeper analysis of these issues. Experiences of

the First Nations in Canada were presented to provide a broader

perspective of similar history of struggle, land policies, e+ orts to

resolve land claims and lessons that can be shared.

This collaborative e+ ort aims to contribute to the pursuit of sus-

tainable peace in Mindanao by particularly focusing on the complex

issue of land tenure. The study o+ ers recommendations that will

help build a comprehensive framework for resolving tenurial con-

fl icts that considers the di+ erent dimensions and promotes com-

munity-based alternatives to confl ict resolution. KFI, MEDNET

and LGSPA hope that this modest contribution will be harnessed by

partners in enriching the discourse on genuine solutions to resolv-

ing the long-standing issue of land and the Moro and indigenous

peoples respective rights to self- governance.

Kadtuntaya Foundation, Inc. (KFI)Mediators’ Network for Sustainable Peace (MEDNet), Inc.Local Governance Support Program in ARMM (LGSPA)

Land Tenure Book 1001.indd VII 10/1/09 11:18 AM

VIII

AcronymsA&D Alienable and Disposable

AFP Armed Forces of the Philippines

ARMM Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao

BC British Columbia

BJE Bangsamoro Juridical Entity

BOL Board of Liquidators

CA 141 Commonwealth Act 141

CADT Certifi cate of Ancestral Domain Title

CARL Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law

CARP Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program

CCCH Coordinating Committee for the Cessation of

Hostilities

CENRO Community Environment and Natural

Resources O% cer

DAR Department of Agrarian Reform

DENR Department of Environment and Natural

Resources

GRP Government of the Republic of the Philippines

IATF Inter-Agency Task Force

ICC Indian Claims Commission

IPRA Indigenous People’s Rights Act

LASEDECO Land Settlement Development Corporation

LGSPA Local Governance Support Program in ARMM

LMB Land Management Bureau

LMS Land Management Sector

MILF Moro Islamic Liberation Front

MNLF Moro National Liberation Front

MOA-AD Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral

Domain

NARRA National Resettlement and Rehabilitation

Administration

NCIP National Commission on Indigenous People

OIC O% cer-In-Charge

PEEI Philippine Evangelical Enterprises, Inc.

PENRO Provincial Environment and Natural

Resources O% cer

RED Regional Executive Director

RTC Regional Trial Court

RTD Regional Technical Director

TD Technical Description

VOS Voluntary O* er to Sell

Land Tenure Book 1001.indd VIII 10/1/09 11:18 AM

IX

G lossary of TermsADAT

The term literally means custom and usages, or simply

customary law embracing all the customs and traditions of

the Malayan community which were given through usage, the

force of law in the course of time. They were enforced by tribal

elders and chiefs. The Adat law resembles the Common Law

in England. Like the Common Law, it is based on reason and

common sense known in jurisprudence as equity. The adat law

is principally unwritten, being a case law and it adapts to change

in time. An adat one hundred years ago may no longer be an ac-

ceptable adat today. (Musib M. Buat: Survey of Filipino Muslim

Adat (Customary) Law: Mindanao Journal/Vol. 111, No. 3-4, p.9,

On the Codifi cation of Muslim Customary (Adat) and Qur’anic

Laws, Papers of the Sixth Annual Seminar on Islam in the

Philippines and Asia, September 20-23, 1973, Ateneo de Davao

College, Davao City.)

AGAMA

The Muslims of the Philippines were governed by Islamic law.

They had their own courts which they called agama and their

own judges. Also, the Philippine Muslims since the early cen-

turies were already enjoying a relatively high degree of civiliza-

tion. The sultanates in Sulu and Maguindanao were part of a

constellation to Sultanates in Southeast Asia. These

sultanates were Muslim outposts, governed by Islamic law and

their respective customs and traditions. (Musib M. Buat: Survey

of Filipino Muslim Adat (Customary) Law: Mindanao Journal/

Vol. 111, No. 3-4, p.9, On the Codifi cation of Muslim Customary

(Adat) and Qur’anic Laws, Papers of the Sixth Annual Seminar

on Islam in the Philippines and Asia, September 20-23, 1973,

Ateneo de Davao College, Davao City.)

ANCESTRAL DOMAIN

All lands and natural resources in the Autonomous Region that

have been possessed or occupied by indigenous cultural com-

munities since time immemorial, except when prevented by

war, force majeure, or other forms of forcible usurpation”. It

includes “pasture lands, worship areas, burial grounds, forests

and fi elds, mineral resources, except: strategic minerals such as

uranium, coal, petroleum, and other fossil fuels, mineral oils,

and all sources of potential energy; lakes, rivers and lagoons; and

national reserves and marine parks, as well as forest and water-

shed reservations”. (Article X, Section 1, Republic Act 9054, An

Act to Strengthen and Expand the Organic Act for the Autono-

mous Region in Muslim Mindanao)

Ancestral domain does not form part of the public domain but

encompasses ancestral, communal, and customary lands, mari-

time, fl uvial and alluvial domains as well all natural resources

therein that have inured or vested ancestral rights on the basis

Land Tenure Book 1001.indd IX 10/1/09 11:18 AM

X

of native title. Ancestral domain and ancestral land refer to

those held under claim of ownership, occupied or possessed, by

themselves or through the ancestors of the Bangsamoro people,

communally or individually since time immemorial continu-

ously to the present, except when prevented by war, civil dis-

turbance, force majeure, or other forms of possible usurpation

or displacement by force, deceit, stealth, or as a consequence of

government project or any other voluntary dealings entered into

by the government and private individuals, corporate entities or

institutions. (The GRP-MILF Draft Memorandum of Agreement

on the Ancestral Domain)

ANCESTRAL LANDS

Lands in the actual, open, notorious, and uninterrupted

possession and occupation by an indigenous cultural

community for at least 30 years. (RA 9054) The term also

refers to land occupied, possessed and utilized by individuals,

families and clans who are members of the Indigenous Cultural

Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) since time

immemorial, by themselves or through their predecessors

in interest, under claims of individual or traditional group

ownership, continuously, to the present except when

interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force,

deceit, stealth, or as a consequence of government projects

and other voluntary dealings entered into by government and

private individuals/corporations including, but not limited to,

residential lots, rice terraces or paddies, private forests, swidden

farms and tree lots. (Chapter II, Section 3 (a), Republic Act 8371

“Indigenous Peoples Rights Act”)

BANGSAMORO

The Bangsamoro people refers to those who are natives or origi-

nal inhabitants of Mindanao and its adjacent islands including

Palawan and the Sulu archipelago at the time of conquest or

colonization of its descendants whether mixed or of full blood.

Spouses and their descendants are classifi ed as Bangsamoro.

The freedom of choice of the indigenous people shall be

respected. (The GRP-MILF Draft Memorandum of Agreement

on the Ancestral Domain)

Bangsamoro is the collective identity of the Islamized people in

Mindanao, in the islands of Basilan and Palawan, and the Sulu

and Tawi-Tawi archipelago in the south of the Philippines. It

consists of two words, Bangsa and Moro. Bangsa is a Malay word

the political connotation of which means nation, and Moro is

the name given by the Spanish colonialists to the Muslim popu-

lation of Mindanao similar with the name they call the Muslims

of North Africa who for centuries ruled the Iberian peninsula.

Combining the two words, Bangsamoro means Moro nation.

(Abhoud Syed M. Lingga, Chairman, Bangsamoro People's Con-

sultative Assembly, http://democracy.mkolar.org/Bangsamoro-

Self-Determination.html, Geneva, Switzerland, July 17, 2002)

BANGSAMORO HOMELAND

The Bangsamoro homeland and historic territory refer to the

land mass as well as the maritime, terrestrial, fl uvial and al-

luvial domains, and the aerial domain, the atmospheric space

above it, embracing the Mindanao-Sulu-Palawan geographic

region. (The GRP-MILF Draft Memorandum of Agreement on

the Ancestral Domain)

Land Tenure Book 1001.indd X 10/1/09 11:18 AM

XI

CADASTRAL SURVEY

The Cadastral Survey in the Philippines is a survey covering an

entire municipality or city consisting of several or many parcels

of land undertaken for the purpose of title clearance and land

registration. Cadastral Act 2259, which governs the Cadastral

Survey, is intended primarily for the purpose of quieting title to

any land within a particular area by way of compulsory registra-

tion proceedings and thus minimizing land confl icts. The owners

of lots surveyed must lay claim to their land holdings and must

prove their ownership during the subsequent court proceedings

because failure on their part to do so may give the court no choice

but to declare these lands as public lands (http://www.cadastral-

template.org/countrydata/ph.htm).

CERTIFICATE OF ANCESTRAL DOMAIN TITLE

The term refers to a title formally recognizing the rights of

possession and ownership of ICCs/IPs over their ancestral

domains identifi ed and delineated in accordance with this

law. (Chapter II, Section 3 (c), Republic Act 8371 “Indigenous

Peoples Rights Act”)

COMMUNAL OWNERSHIP

This is a commonly used term to describe those situations

where rights to use resources are held by a community. It often

includes communal rights to pastures and forests, and exclusive

private rights to agricultural and residential parcels. In such

community-based tenure regimes, people may not have the

right to transfer their land to others, or may have strictly limited

rights to transfer (for example, transfers may be limited to heirs

through inheritance, or sales may be restricted to members of

the community.) (Herrera, Adriana and Maria Guglielma da

Passano. 2006. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) Land

Tenure Alternative Confl ict Management. Rome: FAO).

CUSTOMARY LAWS

This refer to a body of written and/or unwritten rules, usages,

customs and practices traditionally and continually recognized,

accepted and observed by respective ICCs/IPs. (Chapter II, Sec-

tion 3 (f ), Republic Act 8371 “Indigenous Peoples Rights Act”)

HOMESTEAD

Homestead is a mode of concession designed for frontier areas

or virgin lands of the public domain. Used by the Americans to

hasten settlements and development of the West, it was incor-

porated in the fi rst Public Land Act of 1903, and is still provided

for in the present Constitution and C.A. No. 141, as amended.

(Casanova, Ramon. “Public Land Laws of the Philippines.” In

Philippines-Australia Land Administration and Management

Project. July 2002. Land Laws and Regulations Policy Study.

Final Report. Vols. 1 and 2. (Report A2) http://www.phil-lamp.

org/lamp2studies.html)

“Ilaga” MOVEMENT

The years 1969 to 1972 was a period of indiscriminate en-

counters between Muslims and Christians, mostly in Central

Mindanao, that peaked in 1971 popularized by the media as the

“Mindanao crisis”. The Ilaga emerged during this period that

was fi rst convened by seven politicians in Cotabato led by Mayor

Nicolas Dequina of Midsayap. Muslim leaders later tagged the

seven politicians as the Magnifi cent Seven. In an interview

with historian B.R. Rodil, Mayor Dequina claimed that this was

organized in self-defense. The Ilaga evolved into self-supporting

Land Tenure Book 1001.indd XI 10/1/09 11:18 AM

XII

paramilitary groups, complete with integral religious rituals,

the observance of which would reportedly render the mem-

bers invulnerable to bullets and other instruments of violence.

(Rodil, B.R. 2003. A Story of Mindanao and Sulu in Question and

Answer. Davao City: MinCode, pp. 135-136)

INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITY

Filipino citizens residing in the Autonomous Region who are:

(a) Tribal peoples –these are citizens whose social, cultural

and economic conditions distinguish them from other sector

of the national community; and (b) Bangsamoro people –these

are citizens who are believers in Islam and who have retained

some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political

institutions. (Article X, Section 3, Republic Act 9054, An Act to

Strengthen and Expand the Organic Act for the Autonomous

Region in Muslim Mindanao)

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES/INDIGENOUS CULTURAL

COMMUNITIES

A group of people or homogenous societies identifi ed by self-

ascription and ascription by others, who have continuously

lived as an organized community on communally bounded and

defi ned territory, and who have, under claims of ownership

since time immemorial, occupied, possessed and utilized such

territories, sharing common bonds of language, customs, tradi-

tions and other distinctive cultural traits, or who have, through

resistance to political, social and cultural inroads of coloniza-

tion, non-indigenous religions and cultures, became historically

di2 erentiated from the majority of Filipinos. ICCs/IPs shall

likewise include peoples who are regarded as indigenous on

account of their descent from the populations which inhabited

the country, at the time of conquest or colonization, or at the

time of inroads of non-indigenous religions and cultures, or the

establishment of present state boundaries, who retain some or

all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institu-

tions, but who may have been displaced from their traditional

domains or who may have resettled outside their ancestral

domains. (Chapter II, Section 3 (h), Republic Act 8371 Republic

Act 8371 – Indigenous Peoples Rights Act)

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

There does not seem to be one defi nitive defi nition of

indigenous people, but generally indigenous people are those

that have historically belonged to a particular region or country,

before its colonization or transformation into a nation state,

and may have di2 erent—often unique—cultural, linguistic,

traditional, and other characteristics to those of the dominant

culture of that region or state. (United Nations Permanent

Forum on Indigenous Issues)

LAND DISPUTE

Land dispute is a disagreement over land. A land dispute occurs

where specifi c individual or collective interests relating to land

are in confl ict. Land disputes can operate at any scale from the

international to those between individual neighbours. At what-

ever scale, the dispute is likely to owe as much to the

general psychology of neighbourly relations as to actual prob-

lems relating to the land. (Herrera, Adriana and Maria Gugliel-

ma da Passano. 2006. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)

Land Tenure Alternative Confl ict Management. Rome: FAO).

Land Tenure Book 1001.indd XII 10/1/09 11:18 AM

XIII

LAND TENURE

Land tenure is the relationship, whether legally or customarily

defi ned, among people, as individuals or groups, with respect

to land. (For convenience, “land” is used here to include other

natural resources such as water and trees.) Land tenure is

an institution, i.e., rules invented by societies to regulate

behaviour. Rules of tenure defi ne how property rights to land

are to be allocated within societies. They defi ne how access

is granted to rights to use, control, and transfer land, as well

as associated responsibilities and restraints. In simple terms,

land tenure systems determine who can use what resources

for how long, and under what conditions. (Herrera, Adriana

and Maria Guglielma da Passano. 2006. Food and Agricultural

Organization (FAO) Land Tenure Alternative Confl ict

Management. Rome: FAO).

LAND TENURE SYSTEM

The land tenure system in a given jurisdiction comprises the

set of possible bases under which land may be used. As such this

range encompasses both rural and urban tenures and includes

ownership, tenancy and other arrangements for the use of land.

(Ciparisse, Gerard. 2003.Food and Agricultural Organization

(FAO) Multilingual Thesaurus on Land Tenure)

LUMAD

The Lumad is a term being used to denote a group of indigenous

peoples of the southern Philippines. It is a Cebuano term mean-

ing "native" or "indigenous". The term is short for katawhang

lumad (literally "indigenous peoples"), the autonym o0 cially

adopted by the delegates of the Lumad Mindanaw Peoples

Federation (LMPF) founding assembly in June 26, 1986 at the

Guadalupe Formation Center, Balindog, Kidapawan, Cotabato,

Philippines. It is the self-ascription and collective identity of the

non-Islamized indigenous peoples of Mindanao.

The name Lumad grew out of the political awakening among

various tribes during the martial law regime of President Ferdi-

nand Marcos. It was advocated and propagated by the members

and a0 liates of Lumad Mindanaw, a coalition of all-Lumad local

and regional organizations, which formalized themselves as

such in June 1986 but started in 1983 as a multi-sectoral organi-

zation. Lumad Mindanaw’s main objective was to achieve self-

determination for their member-tribes, or, put more concretely,

self-governance within their ancestral domain in accordance

with their culture and customary laws. No other Lumad organi-

zation has had the express goal in the past.

Representatives from fi fteen tribes agreed in June 1986 to adopt

the name; there were no delegates from the three major groups

of the T'boli, the Teduray and the Subanen. The choice of a

Cebuano word was a bit ironic but they deemed it to be most

appropriate considering that the various Lumad tribes do not

have any other common language except Cebuano. This is the

fi rst time that these tribes have agreed to a common name for

themselves, distinct from that of the Moros and di7 erent from

the migrant majority and their descendants. (Wikipedia)

NATIONAL MINORITIES

Non-Muslim hill tribes referred to under Presidential Decree No.

719 and other non-Muslim national minorities whether referred

to as National Cultural Minorities or Cultural Communities

under other laws. (Presidential Decree No. 1414- Presidential As-

sistant on National Minorities or PANAMIN (June 9, 1978)

Land Tenure Book 1001.indd XIII 10/1/09 11:18 AM

XIV

NATIVE TITLE

The term refers to pre-conquest rights to lands and domains

which, as far back as memory reaches, have been held under a

claim of private ownership by ICCs/IPs, have never been public

lands and are thus indisputably presumed to have been held that

way since before the Spanish Conquest. (Chapter II, Section 3

(l), Republic Act 8371 Republic Act 8371 – Indigenous Peoples

Rights Act)

PUSAKA

The term refers to communal land ownership where the Sultan

or the state had no right to alienate these lands because they

were ancestral and belonged to the tribes. The members of the

tribe may mark the boundaries of their lands with appropriate

trees. The claim to a tribal land is usually proven by existence of

an ancestor’s tomb (tampat). (Musib M. Buat: Survey of Filipino

Muslim Adat (Customary) Law: Mindanao Journal/Vol. 111, No.

3-4, p.9, On the Codifi cation of Muslim Customary (Adat) and

Qur’anic Laws, Papers of the Sixth Annual Seminar on Islam

in the Philippines and Asia, September 20-23, 1973, Ateneo de

Davao College, Davao City.)

REGALIAN DOCTRINE

The “Regalian Doctrine” or jura regalia is a western legal con-

cept that was fi rst introduced by the Spaniards into the country

through the Laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas. (Cruz v.

Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, 347 SCRA

128). The concept denotes that “all lands of the public domain

belong to the State, and that the State is the source of any

asserted right to ownership in land and charged with the conser-

vation of such patrimony. (Republic vs. Intermediate Appellate

Court, 155 SCRA 412; etc.) (Bilog, Gregorio. 2005. Land Titles

and Deeds. Manila: Rex Book Store, Inc., p. 12)

RIDO

The term used by the Maranao, Iranun, and Maguindanao refer-

ring to clan confl icts or violent retaliations. It also refers to a

state of recurring hostilities between families and kinship groups

characterized by a series of retaliatory acts of violence carried

out to avenge a perceived a8 ront or injustice. (Wilfredo Magno

Torres III, ed. Rido: Clan Feuding and Confl ict Management in

Mindanao. 2007. Makati City: The Asia Foundation, p. 12)

RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION

Right to self-determination is the right of peoples to freely de-

termine their political status; and freely pursue their economic,

social and cultural development. (Article 3, United Nations

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples)

TORRENS SYSTEM

The Torrens system of land registration was introduced in the

Philippines by Act No. 496, which took e8 ect on February 1,

1903. This law was amended and superseded by Presidential

Decree No. 1520, which took e8 ect on June 11, 1978, otherwise

known as the “Property Registration Decree.” This is the princi-

pal law now governing land registration in the Philippines. The

originator of the system was Sir Richard Torrens, 1814-1884,

reformer of Australian Land Laws. (Bilog, Gregorio. 2005. Land

Titles and Deeds. Manila: Rex Book Store, Inc., p. 9)

Land Tenure Book 1001.indd XIV 10/1/09 11:18 AM

1

IntroductionL

and confl icts are among the top causes of armed

clashes in Mindanao (Torres, 2007; Tolibas-Nuñez,

1997; Muslim, 1994). These are also the topmost

causes of rido (i.e., inter-family or inter-clan vendetta

confl icts) in Basilan, North Cotabato, Sulu, and the three Zam-

boanga provinces in Mindanao (Kamlian, 2007). In Lanao del

Sur, these problems are said to be second to politics as reason

for rido (Matuan, 2007). In North Cotabato and Bukidnon, these

same problems are the fourth cause of armed confl icts (Alim et

al, 2007). In general, land confl icts are land tenure disputes over

ownership or who owns the land.

But this is only one dimension of the problem. The other

dimensions are ethnic and political which have risen to promi-

nence in recent years; all three are sometimes so closely in-

termeshed that it has become extremely di/ cult to see one

without the other two. Solutions, too, must be viewed in this

broad perspective. Ethnic because a land dispute, fairly recent in

origin, inevitably involves a clash of cultures and systems, usu-

ally modern (read: government) laws versus customary laws on

land ownership and disposition. Political because the Moro and

the Lumad, marginalized or displaced by massive government-

sponsored migration and resettlement from the north in the

20th century and fi nding themselves having nowhere else to go,

have launched their respective struggles for self-determination

or governance within their own ancestral domains. This is

crucial because it questions the very foundations both of the

republic’s landholding system and the basis for governance.

Therefore, it is not just a fi ght between two claimants within

the Torrens system of land ownership; it is also a clash between

two concepts, the Regalian Doctrine, and native title. For the

Moro, claiming that they possess the fundamental right to

determine their fi nal political status, resolution of the problem

requires a sovereignty-based settlement between the Moro na-

tion and the Republic of the Philippines.

The Present Study

Designed as an initiative to see through this mesh and start a

process of fi nding solutions to the voluminous cases of land

ownership disputes, this study was undertaken in two parts. The

fi rst part is a survey of land laws that have a3 ected Moro lands

since before the coming of Spanish and American colonizers.

The second part is focused on fi ve cases of land tenure problems

in the provinces of Cotabato, Maguindanao and Sultan Kudarat.

The fi ve cases of land tenure disputes are: (a) between Moros

and Christian Settlers in Impao, Isulan, Sultan Kudarat ; (b) be-

tween Moro ancestral land’s claimants and a Christian settler in

Barangay Rangeban, Midsayap, Cotabato; (c) between a Chris-

Land Tenure Book 1001.indd 1 10/1/09 11:18 AM

2

tian academic institution and a Moro family in Isulan, Sultan

Kudarat; (d) between two Moro clans in an area now covered

by either Barangay Damacling, Municipality of Paglat, Magu-

indanao, and Barangay Popoyon, Municipality of Tulunan, of

Cotabato, and (e) between a Moro group and the Manobo tribe

in Carmen, Cotabato.

The cases are merely fi ve faces of land tenure problems in the

three provinces of Cotabato, Maguindanao and Sultan Kudarat.

But there are more than enough indicators from the events of

the 70s to the present that the problem of land tenure in Central

Mindanao is widespread, multi-faceted and multi-layered. It

had also generated its own share of bloodshed. This is how seri-

ous the problem is; studies are mere openings towards possible

resolution.

Conceptual Framework

These two parts of the study were woven together by the po-

sitioning theory as the analytical framework. As a social psy-

chological analytical lens used to study discourses at an inter-

personal, intergroup and societal levels, positioning theory

describes the mindsets or perspectives of the people involved,

as well as the interaction and transformation of these mindsets

during the course of the discourse. This analysis is done by

identifying the underlying: a) storyline of spoken and written

statements, b) the positions, such as believed rights and duties

of the speaker or writer as well as of the intended recipients of

the statements, and c) the appearing intentions or outcome of

the statements (Harre & van Langenhove, 1999). In using the

positioning theory for its two parts, this study is able to provide

a macro political and micro intergroup positioning analyses. The

macro level analysis is political because it concerns land laws of

the State. The micro or community intergroup level analysis can

be viewed as a refl ection or ramifi cation of the macro situation.

In analyzing the land laws and the statements of the parties of

the land confl icts during the interviews from the perspective of

positioning theory, this study stresses the importance of under-

standing the social psychological dimension of the confl ict to

reach resolution.

Research Methodology

The research methodology is qualitative. For the fi rst part of

the study, copies of land laws that have a/ ected the Moro lands

were gathered from available documents, including the internet.

Content analyses to identify the underlying storylines, position-

ing of stakeholder groups, and the appearing intent of major

land laws were done. For the second part of the study, represen-

tatives of the parties of the identifi ed land confl ict cases were

interviewed. The chronology of events according to each party

was summarized and presented, and transcripts of the inter-

views were content analyzed to identify underlying storylines,

positions of self and of the other party, and appearing intent of

statements during the interviews.

To assist the research team, an advisory group of Moro lead-

ers was formed. A validation workshop and a review by a panel

of experts were also held to examine the fi ndings, conclusions

and recommendations. It is also important to mention that this

research was undertaken based on the recommendations of the

participants of focus group discussions with civil society organi-

zations and government agencies.


3

Signifi cance of the Study

It is not clear how this study will impact on ethnic and political

issues at this point, but it is hoped that it will serve as trigger

for fi guring out a series of solutions, starting from institutional-

izing a decisive government policy that will resolve once and

for all cases of land disputes, especially those that have bearing

on the Lumad and Moro fi ght for self-determination. If indeed

this takes place, it will not only create a positive climate of rela-

tionships among the people, it will also contribute concretely to

the eventual political settlement between the Government and

the MILF.

Limitations of the Study

As in many other studies, this present study has limitations.

First, the fi ve land disputes are only a few and may not be a com-

prehensive and representative sample of the many land disputes

in Central Mindanao and in ARMM for that matter. Second, the

parties of the featured cases were the ones who selected their

representatives to the interviews and focus group discussions.

Except for the land disputes between a Christian academic in-

stitution and a Moro family, and the confl ict between two Moro

clans, the interviewed parties of the other three land disputes

were males. Thus, the participation of women in the study was

very limited. Third, three of four interviewers are Christians,

and their identity may have infl uenced the answers of the infor-

mants to the questions. Given these limitations, further studies

or multi-stakeholder forums would be helpful to further validate

the fi ndings and build on the recommendations of this research.

The Moros and other peace stakeholders in Mindanao should

be given the paramount position to determine the direction and

courses of action to resolve the land confl icts in Mindanao.

Contents of the Study

To provide a more comprehensive picture of the land confl ict

situations, this paper begins with an overview of the history

of land confl icts in the Provinces of Cotabato, Maguindanao

and Sultan Kudarat, where the selected fi ve land disputes are

located. Government data on the land tenure situation that are

believed to a& ect the land disputes in the communities, such as

the fi ve land disputes in this study, are also included. As well,

this study includes a section on the experiences of the aboriginal

people of Canada in land tenure confl icts —a good source of a

wealth of lessons on confl ict resolution and transformation.

In all, this paper is divided into seven sections. Section 1

provides the historical contexts of land confl icts in the three

provinces and the general land tenure situation in Mindanao.

Section 2 is a survey of land laws that have a& ected the land

rights of the Moro. Section 3 is a positioning analysis of the

major land laws cited in Section 2 and of alternative policies

such as MOA-AD developed through peace negotiations. Section

4 presents fi ve land confl ict stories involving Moros in North

Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, and Maguindanao. Section 5 is a

positioning analysis of the land confl icts presented in Section

4. Section 6 presents the success stories related to resolution

of land tenure confl icts experiences by the aboriginal people

of Canada. And fi nally, Section 7 consolidates the analyses in

the previous sections, and, on this basis puts forward a set of

recommendations for a land policy framework in Mindanao and

for the resolution or transformation of the land disputes.


66

From 1968 to 1972 Central Mindanao was

a world in turmoil. From 1972 to 1976, it

was in a state of war. From 1977 to 1996, it

was still technically a war zone. From 1997

to the present, the Joint Ceasefi re of the

Government and the Moro Islamic Libera-

tion Front defi ned it as confl ict-a, ected

areas. And, almost in the very same areas a, ected by the above-

mentioned turmoil, war rages between the Government Armed

Forces and the MILF guerilla units. Until this confl ict is politi-

cally settled, no one knows how much longer it will last.

If Central Mindanao is divided now into the zones of Lanao

and Cotabato as in the old days, the fi ve case studies on land

tenure stories narrated here would be situated on the Cotabato

side. The factors that brought turmoil and war together and

the details of the stories of the fi ve case studies have become so

closely intertwined in one way or the other that untangling them

has become a huge complex problem in itself. To more fully

Historical Background of Land Confl icts in the Provinces of Cotabato, Maguindanao and Sultan Kudarat

appreciate this complex intertwine, its various dimensions

and its depth, and fi nd a way to untangle it, a quick review of

Mindanao history is needed.

The Setting: the Empire province of Cotabato

The bigger setting of the fi ve cases is within the territory ear-

lier popularly but uno- cially known as the empire province of

Cotabato. It has since been subdivided into the fi ve provinces of

Cotabato, South Cotabato, Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat and

Sarangani, and is traditional home to several indigenous tribes,

some of which are Islamized, some not. Those Islamized, now

also known as Moro or Bangsamoro are the Maguindanaon,

Iranun, and Sangil. Those who have generally retained their

indigenous belief system are the Teduray, Manobo, Blaan, T’boli,

Dulangan Manobo and Lambangian; they are also known as

Lumad, a Bisayan word that means indigenous, a recent self-

ascription adopted by the indigenous communities of Mindanao

in 1986. The choice of a Bisayan name is for pragmatic reasons

since it happens to be the lingua franca of Lumads whenever


Land Tenure Stories in Central Mindanao77

they come together in big conferences from all over Mindanao.

It has become a home, too, to settlers who came in the 20th

century and their descendants who were born and grew up here.

Now they have no other home.

According to the 2000 census, the whole region has a total

population of slightly over four million, 1.1 million of which

or 28.25 percent is Moro, 413,562 or 10.30 percent is Lumad

and 2.4 million or 61.45 percent is settler. In the three particu-

lar provinces of the case studies, Cotabato, Maguindanao and

Sultan Kudarat, the populations vary. In terms of percentages,

Cotabato’s population is 19.55 percent Moro, 6.27 Lumad, and

74.17 settler; Maguindanao count is 79.01 percent Moro, 7.37 per-

cent Lumad and 13.62 percent settler; that of Sultan Kudarat is

22.09 percent Moro, 7.80 percent Lumad and 70.12 settler. [See

Table 1 for more details]

The Players in the Land Tenure Cases

Maguindanaon, Manobo, Ilonggo, corporate groups (King’s col-

lege, the municipality, Bureau of Lands, DENR): these are the

a5 liations carried by the main players in the fi ve land dispute

cases of this study. The specifi c locations of the cases are within

the particular provinces of Cotabato, Maguindanao and Sultan

Kudarat. The fi rst two of the players are indigenous, Maguin-

danao and Manobo; the third is settler, Ilonggo and Ilocano, and,

of course, one may add the government. Today the parties can

also be referred to collectively as Moro or Maguindanao, Lumad

or Manobo, and settlers also known as dumagat/homesteaders/

home seekers, and government, respectively.

The Maguindanaon

The indigenous inhabitants in all fi ve cases are Maguindanaon,

belonging to the ethno-linguistic group known locally as Magu-

indanao. They have been professing Islam since the arrival of

Sharif Kabungsuan around 1515 AD. They are locally identifi ed

and subdivided among themselves as Maguindanao sa ilud or

those from downstream of the Pulangi River or Maguindanao

sa laya or those from upstream of the Pulangi. Other indigenous

Moro groups, smaller in population and occupying smaller ter-

ritories, are the Iranun and the Sangil.

The Manobo groups

The other indigenous inhabitants in Carmen, Cotabato are

the Arumanen Manobo –Arumanen for short– and they have

retained their native belief system; some of them have adopted

Christianity though they continue to identify themselves as

Manobo. Traditionally inhabiting the Cotabato area along the

Pulangi as far as southern Bukidnon, the Arumanen are subdi-

PROVINCE TOTAL MORO LUMAD SETTLER

Population Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

South Cotabato 1,100,511 50,636 4.60 126,624 11.51 923,251 83.89

Sarangani 410,137 37,633 9.18 120,638 29.41 251,866 61.41

Cotabato 957,294 187,195 19.55 60,062 6.27 710,037 74.17

Sultan Kudarat 585,768 129,373 22.09 45,682 7.80 410,713 70.12

Cotabato City 161,517 97,218 60.19 1,573 0.97 62,726 38.84

Maguindanao 800,369 632,382 79.01 58,983 7.37 109,004 13.62

Grand Total 4,015,596 1,134,437 28.25 413,562 10.30 2,467,597 61.45

Table 1Moro, Lumad, Settler Population in the Five Provinces of South Cotabato, Sarangani, Sultan

Kudarat, Maguindanao and Cotabato City

Source: 2000 Census


Land Tenure Stories in Central Mindanao 8

vided into at least ten subgroups: Livunganen, Isuruken, Kir-

inteken, Divevaan, Simuniyen, Mulitaan, Ilianen, Dungguanen,

Lehitanen, Direyaan. In Cotabato, their territories are encom-

passed in the following municipalities: Pigcawayan, Libungan,

Alamada, Banisilan, Carmen, Kabacan, Matalam, President

Roxas; and in the towns of Damulog, Kadingilan, Kalilangan and

Kibawe in Bukidnon. There are also the Arakan Manobo and the

Ubo Manobo in the region towards Mount Apo. The Manobos

in the Sultan Kudarat area are called Dulangan Manobo and the

Lambangian, both close relatives of the Teduray.

Other Lumad groups in the Cotabato provinces are the Te-

duray, Blaan and T’boli.

The Settlers/Dumagat/ Homesteaders/Home Seekers

The settlers are 20th century arrivals from northern Philip-

pines, part of the infl ux of migrants attracted by the resettle-

ment programs of the government from American colonial

times. Certain areas of Cotabato became destinations of large

groups of settlers belonging to particular ethnic groups, e.g.

Koronadal Valley became heavily populated with Ilonggos;

Kabacan in Cotabato and Lambayong in Sultan Kudarat were

occupied by Ilocanos.

Indigenous Population in Cotabato provinces

Even prior to the arrival of the Spaniards in Mindanao, the two

principalities of Maguindanao, Maguindanao sa ilud and Ma-

guindanao sa laya had lorded it over the southern region, even

as far north as the Visayas. Unifi ed under Sultan Kudarat, the

Maguindanao Sultanate became one major bastion of Moro re-

sistance to Spanish attempts to conquer and colonize the Moro;

the other group, older as a sultanate by almost 169 years, was the

Sulu Sultanate, founded in 1450 AD. A third was the Pat a Pon-

gampong ko Ranaw (the four principalities of Lanao).

Maguindanao was badly mauled at the end of the Spanish

colonization owing to continuous battering during the second

half of the 19th century, hence, its leaders were compelled to

sign agreements that compromised the sultanate’s sovereignty.

However, it remained unbowed and unconquered to the very

end. In fact, at the time of the Treaty of Paris in December 1898,

there were at least three de facto states in what is known today

as the Philippines. The Philippines had declared its indepen-

dence six months earlier, all of Morolandia, the Sultanates of

Sulu, Maguindanao and Pat a Pongampong ko Ranaw, even the

un-Islamized indigenous tribes of Mindanao, were still un-

colonized. Each one of these was summarily and unilaterally

included by Spain in the 20-million dollar cession of the Philip-

pine Islands to the United States. It was a spurious transaction

to say the least. But if there was any question about the dubious

character of this transaction, it was rendered moot and academ-

ic by the American armed conquest of Pilipinas, the sultanates

of Sulu, Maguindanao, the Pat a Pongampong ko Ranaw and the

other indigenous tribes.

As the new owners and colonizers of the Philippine Islands,

the Americans imposed the regalian doctrine, after the practice

in the days of the monarchy when it was the king who owned the

land within his kingdom. Though using the regalian doctrine,

American democracy is founded on the principle that sovereign-

ty resides in the American people. The American colonial gov-

ernment abolished the indigenous practice of communal owner-



ship of land and institutionalized the torrens system. Individuals

and juridical entities, such as corporations, could now own land.

It decreed the implementation of resettlement programs where-

by certain sparsely populated areas of the Philippine islands

were opened to migrants from the more populated regions.

It also institutionalized labels which has deeply a$ ected not

only land distribution but also the relationship between the

Christian majority and the non-Christian minority. In the 1903

census, the people were neatly divided into two classifi cations,

Christians and non-Christians, the Christians being those who

were converts into Catholicism during the Spanish colonial pe-

riod and the non-Christians being those who were not; this last

were the Moro and the “wild tribes”. Worse, the Christians were

described as civilized and the non-Christians uncivilized. These

labels found their way into the public land laws.

Traditional land grants voided

In 1903, the American-dominated Philippine Commission en-

acted a law, Philippine Commonwealth Act 718, which declared

as null and void all land grants made by traditional leaders such

as sultans, datus, timuays and the like if done without consent of

the government (meaning the American colonial government).

The various public land laws classifi ed the lands into inalienable

and non-disposable and alienable and disposable. The torrens

system prescribed how lands can be owned by individuals and

corporate entities. Certain areas of the Philippines were opened

to resettlement, such as Cagayan Valley and Nueva Ecija, Mind-

oro and Palawan in Luzon, and Mindanao. Except for a little por-

tion of Bongao in Tawi-Tawi, the Sulu Archipelago was spared

from this land distribution scheme.

The land distribution scheme and the public land laws which

provided the legal basis for resettlement were discriminatory to

say the least: a classic example of class legislation. What happened

in the empire province of Cotabato is a very interesting study.

Public land laws, resettlement and marginalization

The public land law, in its original and later, amended forms,

specifi ed not only how alienable or public lands may be acquired

but also how many hectares may be acquired by whom. In the

initial version of the public land act of 1903, Public Land Act

926, homesteaders were allowed to own 16 hectares and corpo-

rations, 1,024 hectares; there was no provision for non-Chris-

tians. In 1919 the law, Public Land Act 2874 was enacted, which

increased the hectarage for homesteaders to 24 hectares and

retaining 1,024 hectares for corporations. There was a provision

for non-Christians this

time; only they were

allowed only smaller

lots of 10 hectares.

Another amendment

was made in 1936, when

Commonwealth Act

141 was passed, during

the Commonwealth

period. The allowable hectarage for homesteaders reverted to 16

hectares, the same 1024 hectares allowed for corporations, but

for non-Christians, hectarage was reduced to four. [See Table 2]

A classic case of class legislation is the only conclusion one can

draw from this. How did it impact on the demographic situation

of Cotabato and Mindanao as a whole?

HECTARAGE ALLOWED

Year Homesteader Non-Christian Corporation

1903 16 has. No provision 1024 has.

1919 24 has. 10 has. 1024 has.

1936 16 has. 4 has. 1024 has.

Table 2 Public Land Law and Resettlement



The empire province of Cotabato had 25 municipalities in the

census of 1918, 32 in the 1939 count, and 48 in the 1970 enu-

meration. In 1918, 20 of these towns were majority Moro, fi ve

majority Lumad, and none were majority settlers.. In 1939, 20

of these towns were still majority Moro, nine were majority Lu-

mad, and three majority settlers. In 1970, less than 60 years after

the large scale movement of migrants started in 1913, the set-

tlers’ predominance was felt in 38 towns, majority Moro towns

went down to ten, and there were no more that were majority

Lumad. [See Table 3]

• 1919-1930: Resettlement implemented by the Inter-island

Migration Division of the Bureau of Labor; opened Kapalong,

Guiangga, Tagum, Lupon and Baganga in Davao; Labangan

in Zamboanga and Lamitan in Basilan; Cabadbaran, Butuan

and Buenavista in Agusan; Momungan and Kapatagan valley

in Lanao. It brought in more settlers to Pikit and Pagalungan

• 1935: Act 4197 Quirino-Recto Colonization Act/ Organic

Charter of Organized Land Settlement

• 1939: Act 441 Creating National Land Settlement Admin-

istration (NLSA); opened Koronadal Valley (Lagao, Tupi,

Marbel and Polomolok), Ala Valley (Banga, Norala and

Surala) and Mallig plains in Isabela

• 1949: Rice and Corn Production Administration (RCPA)

created to promote rice and corn production; Opened

Buluan in Cotabato and Maramag-Wao in Bukidnon-Lanao

border

• 1950: Land Settlement Development Corporation (LA-

SEDECO); opened Tacurong, Isulan, Bagumbayan, Part of

Buluan, Sultan sa Barongis, Ampatuan

• 1951: Economic Development Corps (EDCOR) for captured

and surrendered Huks; opened Arevalo in Sapad, Lanao

del Norte; Genio in Alamada, Gallego and Barira in Buldon,

all in Cotabato, and two other municipalities in Isabela and

Quezon

• 1954: RA 1160 created the National Resettlement and Reha-

bilitation Administration (NARRA)

• 1963: Land Authority inaugurated land reform, also man-

aged resettlement

• 1971: RA 6389 created the Department of Agrarian Reform

(DAR), implemented resettlement thru the Bureau of Re-

settlement

Table 3Resettlement: Case of Cotabato 1918, 1939, 1970 Census

YearNo. of Moro

Majority TownsNo. of Lumad

Majority TownsNo. of Settler

MajorityTowns

1918 20 5 0

1939 20 9 3

1970 10 0 38

The resettlement programs listed below facilitated the large

scale movement of population from the north, from 1913 to 1971.

Still, there were numerous others who came on their own.

• 1913: Act 2254 Agricultural Colonies Act creating agricul-

tural colonies in Cotabato Valley (Pikit, Pagalungan, Glan)

• 1914: Commonwealth Act 2280 creating an agricultural

colony in Momungan (Balo-i), Lanao

• 1919: Commonwealth Act 2206 authorizing provincial

boards to manage colonies. Zamboanga opened Lamitan;

Sulu opened Tawi-Tawi; Bukidnon opened Marilog; Cota-

bato opened Salunayan and Maganoy to settlers



Thirty seven (37) settlements were administered all over

the country, eighteen (18) of which were in Mindanao in the ten

provinces of Tawi-Tawi (Balimbing-Bongao), Zamboanga del

Norte (Liloy, Salug, Sindangan), Bukidnon (Maramag, Pangan-

tukan, Kalilangan), Agusan del Sur (Prosperidad, Talacogon),

Davao del Norte (Sto. Tomas, Panabo, Asuncion), Lanao del

Norte (Sapad, Nunungan, Karomatan), Lanao del Sur (Wao,

Lumba-a-Bayabao, Bubong, Butig, Lumbatan, Bayang, Bini-

dayan, Pagayawan, Tubaran), North Cotabato (Carmen, Al-

amada), Maguindanao (Buldon, Upi-Dinaig) and Sultan Kudarat

(Columbio, Tulunan, Isulan, Bagumbayan, Surallah).

What could be seen in the above is the process and impact of

resettlement in Cotabato. The above also narrates the story of

how the indigenous Moro and Lumad communities were reduced

to the status of numerical minorities in their own territories

by force of law. What happened in Cotabato was also refl ected

elsewhere in Mindanao – all legally supported by law and relevant

government agencies. From 1971 onward, the Department of

Agrarian Reform merely managed existing resettlement areas.

Mindanao in 1890

In 1890, Ferdinand Blumentritt, an Austrian ethnographer

and close friend of Dr. Jose Rizal, produced a map based on

data obtained from Jesuit missionaries stationed in Mindanao.

This was recently digitized by Dr. Sabino “Abe” Padilla of the

University of the Philippines-Manila. It shows that the greater

parts of Mindanao corresponding roughly to Davao City, Davao

Oriental, Davao del Norte, Compostela Valley and Davao del

Sur; Agusan del Norte and Sur; Bukidnon; Surigao del Norte and

Sur; Misamis Oriental and Occidental; Zamboanga del Norte-

Sur and Sibugay; and Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat; South Cotabato

and Sarangani were marked as territories of the Infi eles or

“unbelievers”, those we now call Lumad. Those marked as

occupied by the Moro were the solid areas corresponding to

Maguindanao, Lanao del Sur and Norte, Basilan and the entire

Sulu archipelago. In addition, strips of coastal areas from the

mouth of the Pulangi in Cotabato southward to Sarangani and

eastward to Davao, all the way to Davao Oriental, were also

populated by them. The Cristianos occupied coastal strips from

Davao Oriental upward to Surigao, then westward to Agusan del

Norte, Misamis Oriental, Iligan, Misamis Occidental, Dipolog

and Dapitan and Zamboanga City. These Cristianos were

largely converts from the local Bisayan speaking population

during the Spanish colonial period, corresponding roughly to

the Davaweños, Surigaonon and several similar sub-groups

in Surigao, Butuanon, Gingoognon, Cagayanon, Iliganon,

Misamisnon, and Dapitanon. The Zamboangueños were said

to have originated from Merdicas who were brought in by the

Spaniards from the Moluccas.

By the 1970 census, the radical change in the demographic

situation is indicated by the fact that only eight municipalities

had remained Lumad-dominated, as follows: Esperanza,

Agusan del Sur – 66.35%; Impasugong, Bukidnon – 75.97%;

San Fernando, Bukidnon – 61.43%; Sumilao, Bukidnon –

78.26%; Talakag, Bukidnon – 56.93%; Jose Abad Santos,

Davao del Sur – 60.57%; Malita, Davao del Sur – 61.90%, and

Lapuyan, Zamboanga del Sur – 60.25%. Three more were

added afterwards, namely, South Upi, Maguindanao – 62.39%

Teduray; Lake Sebu – 58.52% and T’boli – 67.69%, both in

South Cotabato, T’boli, for a total of 11.


Map 1. Mindanao in 1890



Only the following areas remained predominantly populated

by the Moros, Maguindanao - (part of Cotabato); Lanao del Sur

- 91.97%; Basilan - 63.29%; Sulu - 97.23%; Tawi-Tawi - (part of

Sulu), including 15 municipalities in other provinces: Palawan

(1), Zamboanga Norte (2), Lanao Norte (9), Sultan Kudarat (2),

and Cotabato (1).

The rest have become predominantly Christian-settler towns

and provinces.

Marginalization and Rebellion

It should be pointed out that marginalization did not only in-

volve the reduction of the indigenous Lumad and Moro commu-

nities to numerical minorities in their own lands; it also includes

being sidelined in the political sphere, in economic life, in cul-

ture. Mainstream Filipino culture and values taught in school is

Christian-secular in both private and public institutions.

The period 1960s to 1970s attracted the convergence of ingre-

dients in Mindanao and the Philippines that gave birth to the

Moro rebellion and martial law. One became the excuse for

another: Sabah claim, Jabidah military training, Jabidah mas-

sacre, Muslim (later Mindanao) Independence Movement,

student activism all over the country, Moro student activism

in Al-Azhar University in Egypt, Ilaga, Blackshirts, Barracuda,

Central Mindanao crisis, collaboration between Moro tradition-

al political leaders and young Moro activists, training of Top 90

in Sabah. Their coming together triggered the volcanic eruption

which the MNLF call the Moro war of national liberation from

the clutches of Filipino colonialism.

The cost was staggering: in 1971 alone more than 1,000 people

were killed in the so-called Central Mindanao crisis; from

1970 to 1996, but mainly from 1972 to 1976, between 100,000

to 120,000 perished, fi fty percent of whom were MNLF, thirty

percent military, and twenty percent mostly Moro civilians; Php

73 billion were spent on combat expenses alone on the side of

the government.

Not satisfi ed with the GRP-MNLF Tripoli agreement of 1976,

which established autonomy for the Moros in southern Philip-

pines, and the Final Peace Agreement in 1996 on the imple-

mentation of the Tripoli agreement, and convinced that the

Bangsamoro problem has not been solved, the Moro Islamic

Liberation Front (MILF) launched its own struggle for Moro na-

tional self-determination. Figures on casualties between 1997

and 2009 are not available. What can be gathered is the cost

during the three-month all out war declared by government on

the MILF in the year 2000: 15 to 20 million pesos per day, and

evacuees of more than one million all in all.

After 11 years of peace negotiations from January 1997 to August

4, 2008, a political settlement would have been reached had the

GRP-MILF Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain

been signed in Putrajaya on August 5, 2008. But that was not

to be. Opposition politicians fi led for a temporary restraining

order with the Supreme Court, obtained it, and prevented what

could have been a historic agreement. This became the trigger

for the resumption of hostilities between government forces

and the MILF. This in turn became the excuse for Government

to declare it was no longer willing to sign the document. Instead

it proclaimed a change of paradigm on the peace process, a shift



from formal negotiations to authentic community dialogue and

DDR: demobilization, disarmament and rehabilitation. Less than

three months after the aborted signing, the Supreme Court ruled

that the MOA-AD was unconstitutional. So it was back to war.

It seems that only three MILF base commands were involved

in the fi ghting, not the entire MILF. And it was the three com-

manders of these commands that the military establishment

were ordered to pursue. They have remained at large as of this

writing; guerilla encounters still rage.

Land Tenure Problems

It was during the Central Mindanao crisis of 1971, when Chris-

tian and Muslim populations were severely polarized, that

fi ghting raged between the Ilaga and the Blackshirts in Cotabato,

between Ilaga and Barracuda in Lanao del Norte, and between

Muslim and Christian civilians that many Moro families left

their lands: some sold for a pittance, some simply abandoned for

fear of their lives. There were also many instances when Chris-

tian families, presumably with Ilaga connections, moved into

these lands. Some succeeded in titling them.

Moro Self-Determination

From the establishment of the Mindanao Independence Move-

ment to the creation of the MNLF and the resumption of the

Moro struggle by the MILF, the Moro struggle for self-determi-

nation is obviously - and this is acknowledged by the National

Unifi cation Commission during the term of President Fidel

Ramos - a Moro response to the series of discriminatory o* cial

policies embarked upon by government, from colonial times

to the present. Land ownership policies that had the e+ ect of

displacing them in their own lands (read: territory), policies that

promoted mainstream Filipino culture and subordinated Moro

and other local cultures in both education and media, policies

that allowed the Moro less and less opportunity to govern them-

selves, and the series of violent events all had the collective ef-

fect that facilitated their alienation and reinforced the decision

to resort to armed rebellion and pursue secession. These were

highlighted by the Jabidah massacre in Corregidor, the Central

Mindanao crisis of 1971 highlighting the massacres in Manili,

Carmen, Cotabato and Tacub, Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte.

Central Mindanao was on fi re; hardly a day passed without a

violent incident in Cotabato, South Cotabato, Lanao del Sur and

Lanao del Norte.

The Moro struggle for self-determination immediately implies a

number of fundamental ideas. First, Moro is a collective iden-

tity, that of a nation adopted by the Moro National Liberation

Front (MNLF) for those who should constitute the Bangsamoro

– the thirteen (13) Islamized ethnolinguistic groups, the Lumad

indigenous communities and Christianized Lumad individuals,

and Christians who have adopted the Moro cause as their own.

Second, self-determination is the desire to govern themselves.

The initial form was a Bangsamoro Republic. But with the

Tripoli agreement of 1976, the MNLF agreed to settle down to

autonomy under the sovereignty and within the territory of the

Republic of the Philippines. Third, the declaration of an ances-

tral homeland is the broad defi nition of territory for self-gover-

nance. Initially the MNLF referred to the entirety of Mindanao,

Sulu and Palawan as their ancestral homeland. In time, through

negotiation, this became 13 provinces in the Tripoli Agreement

of 1976, and through the plebiscite of 2001, this territory fi nally



settled down to the fi ve predominantly Muslim provinces of

Maguindanao, Lanao del Sur, Basilan, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi.

With the resumption of the Bangsamoro struggle by the MILF

and the entry of ancestral domain into the agenda of the GRP-

MILF negotiations, the term came to include not only the

traditional lands of the various Moro ethnolinguistic groups but

also portions of those territories which used to be encompassed

within the political domain of the sultanates. Among other

things, the MILF negotiating panel expressed the Bangsamoro

desire to settle disputes or claims over those lands Moros lost by

force majeure from 1968 onward.

Lumad Self-Determination

The Lumad struggle for self-determination is less complex.

Lumad is their collective identity; they have their own right

to self-determination; and they wish to govern their own lives

using their customary laws within their own ancestral domains

– within the national territory and under the sovereignty of the

republic of the Philippines.

In response to Bangsamoro claims that the Lumad communi-

ties form part of the Bangsamoro and their ancestral territories

form part of Bangsamoro ancestral domain, Lumad leaders have

repeatedly made manifest their o+ cial position in several writ-

ten statements. More on this is shared below.

Settlers’ Proprietary Claims

The general position of the settlers is that they are aware that

they migrated from outside Mindanao, mostly from the northern

and central Philippines; they resettled in Mindanao, but that

they generally acquired their lands through legitimate means,

following the laws of the land. Further, they would like the

government to observe democratic processes in dealing with the

ancestral domain claims of both the Bangsamoro and the Lumad.

General Implications of Moro and Lumad Struggles for

Self-Determination

A number of issues were surfaced by MNLF’s political posi-

tion. One, it questions the very foundation of the Republic of

the Philippines - that of one country, one territory, one people.

Formed from the sovereign states of the Sulu and Maguindanao

sultanates and the Pat a Pongampong ko Ranao, the Bangsam-

oro is said to have been appended to the Philippines through

the Treaty of Paris, and later in the formation of the Republic

of the Philippines, without their plebiscitary consent. They are

Bangsamoro, not Filipino. The good part of this position is that

the proponents, MNLF and MILF, open themselves to negotia-

tion and compromise.

Two, the Lumad communities, threatened by this political

stand, later came forward with their own assertion of self-

determination. They express respect for the Bangsamoro

identity and the Bangsamoro struggle for self-determination but

they assert that they are Lumad; they too have their own right to

self-determination, and they have their own respective ancestral

domains distinct from that of the Bangsamoro. Besides,

their ancestors and those of the Bangsamoro entered into

agreements (variously called safa, pakang, dyandi, khandugo,

tampuda hu balagon) on territory (read: border agreements);

these agreements are still in e0 ect and they would like these

recognized by the present generation of Bangsamoro. A renewal



of these agreements is certainly desirable. This statement of

position was contained in the manifesto printed in Bisaya and in

English, put together and signed by 200 Lumad leaders from all

over Mindanao and Palawan who assembled in Cagayan de Oro

City on August 24-27, 2008, to assess their situation and express

their views on the GRP-MILF Memorandum of Agreement

on Ancestral Domain. The English version is entitled “The

Cagayan de Oro Declaration on the Memorandum of Agreement

on Ancestral Domain of the GRP-MILF Peace Panel.”

Three, the settlers are defi nitely threatened by both ancestral

domain claims and feel very insecure by these political develop-

ments. Aside from the formal peace talks between the Govern-

ment and the Moro Fronts, there is an obvious need for the

Lumad, the Moro and the settlers and their descendants to talk

to each other and fi gure out a modus vivendi as citizens of the

Philippine state.

The Five Case Studies

The fi ve cases are micro-histories; the main players are identifi -

able and seem to be open to settlement. And, most important,

their cases can be settled by a simple arrangement, the usual

government interagency task force. But these are undoubtedly

only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. The wildfi re that hit Cen-

tral Mindanao in 1971 and the war that raged thereafter, until

today, are more than enough indicators that there are other

cases like these waiting to be attended to. The players in many

other cases are not islands in themselves. They have relatives in

the MILF; they have relatives in the MNLF; they have relatives

in the AFP; they have relatives in the Philippine National Police,

they have relatives in government, they have relatives among

the Ilaga. One eruption can easily trigger another.

Settling these fi ve cases will have a symbolic value. Not only

will it create a positive climate of relationships among the

people, it will also contribute concretely to the eventual politi-

cal settlement between the Government and the MILF. Lumad

ancestral domain claims can be satisfi ed with greater facility,

and their Certifi cate of Ancestral Domain Titles (CADT) can be

accomplished and delivered if the Indigenous Peoples Rights

Act is appropriately funded and implemented in earnest. Even

the ancestral domain claims of small groups of Moros can be

secured —this has been done recently in Basilan.

Settling these fi ve cases can create a climate of peace, the

space may be small in the beginning but it will surely trigger

the settlement of other cases. Who does not want peace: peace

among the Lumad, the Moro and the settlers? As a Manobo

Timuay from Carmen has reportedly stated (as noted in Rudy

Rodil’s “A Story of Mindanao and Sulu in Question and An-

swer”, 2003), “Mindanao is like a kolon or a clay pot. These

three groups are like the three stones that support the clay pot:

remove one stone and the pot topples and breaks.”

Land Tenure Situation in Central Mindanao

Apart from an understanding of the historical background of the

land tenure disputes in the provinces of Cotabato, Maguindanao

and Sultan Kudarat, knowledge of the general land tenure situa-

tion in Mindanao is also deemed to be important in the genera-

tion of appropriate interventions for dispute resolution. This

section provides a glimpse of the current land tenure situation.



Titled and Untitled Alienable and

Disposable Lands

The total alienable and disposable land area of

Mindanao, as shown in Table 4, is divided into

4,503,520 parcels (LEI, 2004). This represents

18.61% of the total number of land parcels in

the Philippines, which is 24,200,575. Of this

total number of land parcels in Mindanao,

only more than half or 50.18% are titled as of

2004. In Central Mindanao, 51.05% of parcels

of land remain untitled as of 2004. However,

tax parcels or parcels with tax declaration in

Central Mindanao comprise 92.88%. The dif-

ference of 43.93% from the percentage of titled

parcels (48.95%) refers to a portion of untitled

lands, in which “owners” or claimants use tax

declaration as land tenure instrument. This big

percentage of untitled lands in Central

Mindanao can make land tenure insecure and

land ‘ownership’ contentious, and can lead to

land disputes.

Land Records

According to the 2007 records of the Land

Management Bureau (LMB), seven munici-

palities (of 17 municipalities and two cities) in

North Cotabato have not yet been cadastrally

surveyed. In Sultan Kudarat, two municipalities (of 11 munici-

palities and one city) have also not yet been cadastrally sur-

veyed. This situation is also true for seven municipalities and

two cities in South Cotabato, which has two cities and a total of

10 municipalities. In Maguindanao, only four of the 22 munici-

palities in the list of LMB have been cadastrally surveyed.

DENR Administrative Order 2007-29 entitled Revised Regula-

tions on Land Surveys defi nes cadastral surveys made to deter-

Table 4Philippine Land Tenure Status, 2004

Region Total Land

Parcels(A)

Titled Parcels

(B)

% Titled

Parcels(B/A)

Untitled Parcels

(C)

% Untitled Parcels(C/A)

Tax Parcels

(D)

% Tax

Parcels(D/A)

% of Tax Parcels (untitled)(D/A-B/A)

1 2,348,361 922,071 39.26 1,426,290 60.74 2,067,127 88.02 48.76

2 1,370,566 863,199 62.98 507,367 37.02 1,282,782 93.60 30.62

3 2,458,399 1,616,531 65.76 841,868 34.24 2,245,129 91.32 25.56

4 4,275,886 2,743,366 64.16 1,532,520 35.84 3,978,019 93.03 28.87

5 1,339,289 541,520 40.43 797,769 59.57 1,164,154 86.92 46.49

NCR 1,549,636 1,389,904 89.69 159,732 10.31 1,496,102 96.55 6.86

CAR 960,464 527,018 54.87 433,446 45.13 667,032 69.45 14.58

LUZON 14,302,601 8,603,609 60.15 5,698,992 39.85 12,900,345 90.20 30.05

6 1,615,431 823,543 50.98 791,888 49.02 1,440,791 89.19 38.21

7 2,392,839 928,332 38.80 1,464,507 61.20 2,100,678 87.79 48.99

8 1,386,184 435,813 31.44 950,371 68.56 1,248,706 90.08 58.64

VISAYAS 5,394,454 2,187,688.00 40.55 3,206,766 59.45 4,790,175 88.80 48.24

9 918,923 522,420 56.85 396,503 43.15 566,958 61.70 4.85

10 983,030 435,545 44.31 547,485 55.69 841,065 85.56 41.25

11 684,797 428,822 62.62 255,975 37.38 654,815 95.62 33.00

12 721,756 353,268 48.95 368,488 51.05 670,360 92.88 43.93

13 667,574 181,740 27.22 485,834 72.78 598,554 89.66 62.44

ARMM 527,440 338,039 64.09 189,401 35.91 497,025 94.23 30.14

MINDANAO 4,503,520 2,259,834.00 50.18 2,243,686 49.82 3,828,777 85.02 34.84

PHILIPPINES 24,200,575 13,051,131 53.93 11,149,444 46.07 21,519,297 88.92 34.99

Source: Land Administration and Management Project (LAMP) - DENR



mine the metes and bounds of all parcels within an

entire municipality or city for land registration and

other purposes.” This survey is necessary to defi ne

the boundaries of parcels of lands, including political

boundaries of barangays, municipalities, cities and

provinces.

A former o% cial of the Land Management Bureau

cited various reasons for the delay in the cadastral

surveying not only of lands in Mindanao but also of

many areas in the country. One reason is lack of re-

sources because surveying requires human resources,

equipment, and funds. Another reason is lack of co-

operation of local government o% cials, who fear that

their area of jurisdiction will be reduced, and with it

their internal revenue allotment (IRA), after defi ning

the political boundaries. Another reason is the refusal

of land occupants to let surveyors enter their proper-

ties. Many are also afraid that surveying and titling of

lands may trigger rather than resolve confl icts within

families and communities.

CARP Implementation

In one of the land disputes in this study, an heir of a

land survey claimant developed interest in land which

their family had left decades ago and have not occupied

since because of the benefi ts of registering it under

the Voluntary O* er to Sell (VOS) scheme of the Comprehensive

Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). Because of this, a discussion of

CARP implementation is included in this section.

According to DAR (2000), the land transfer component of the

Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program is almost complete in

Mindanao, with 94% of the target land area distributed to quali-

fi ed agrarian reform benefi ciaries. This is signifi cantly higher

than in Luzon and the Visayas, with 85% and 76% accomplish-

Region Scope (Hectares)Accomplishment

(Hectares)%

AccomplishmentNo. of ARBs

PHIL 4,428,357 3,826,214 86 2,201,934

CAR 77,856 86,777 111 67,587

I 140,340 127,690 91 103,333

II 300,055 325,217 108 183,066

III 405,290 387,083 96 244,970

IV-A 204,818 147,298 72 93,059

IV-B 170,817 151,183 89 107,289

V 453,769 258,068 57 153,731

LUZON 1,752,945 1,483,316 85 953,035

VI 559,688 342,550 61 238,914

VII 166,802 132,518 79 99,608

VIII 385,505 374,522 97 163,578

VISAYAS 1,111,995 849,589 76 502,100

IX 158,469 190,717 120 107,884

X 269,799 266,636 99 150,064

XI 202,279 207,714 103 144,456

XII 431,035 438,181 102 186,750

CARAGA 200,262 198,926 99 96,444

ARMM 301,573 191,135 63 61,201

MINDANAO 1,727,086 1,622,517 94 789,733

Table 5DAR Land Distribution Accomplishments by Region, in Hectares 1972-December 2006

Source: Department of Agrarian Reform 2006 Accomplishment Report



ments, respectively. As shown in Table 5, the high percentage of

distributed lands in Mindanao is due to the reported over-the-

target accomplishments of the Department of Agrarian Reform

(DAR) in Regions IX, XI and XII. However, Rodriguez and Bor-

ras (2004, pp.31-33) argued that “although these data suggest

that the land problem in Mindanao is nearly fully resolved, reali-

ties at the ground level reveal contradictory symptoms. This re-

quires us to examine o- cial reports on land redistribution with

a critical eye.” They especially cited the reduction of the original

scope of CARP in Regions 10, 11, and 13, where “nearly 9 of every

10 hectares deducted from the scope came from the category of

private land marked for compulsory acquisition – suggestive of

the political, not merely administrative, nature of the basis for

deducting these landholdings from the DAR scope” (p. 33).

Disposition of Alienable and Disposable Public Lands

The total number of public land patents (i.e., free patents, home-

stead patents and miscellaneous sales patents), issued from 2003

to 2007 is 509,865, of which 28.54% is located in Mindanao. This

is signifi cantly lower than the proportion of patents issued in Lu-

zon (50.19%) and a little bit higher than in Visayas (21.27%). This

implies that the issuance of public land patents has been more

vigorous in Luzon than in Mindanao and Visayas. This is alarm-

ing because the application for land patents was one of the few

mechanisms provided by the Public Land Act for non-Christians

to use and own alienable and disposable public land.

Implementation of the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act

The distribution of Certifi cates of Ancestral Domain Titles

(CADTs) from 2002 to November 15, 2008 appears to be equally

vigorous in Luzon and Mindanao. Although the number of

REGION/PROVINCE

2003-2007

Male % Female % Total % of Total

PHILIPPINES 311,934 61 197,921 39 509,865 100%

NCR 1,419 59 998 41 2,417

CAR 19,548 62 12,083 38 31,641

1 24,701 59 17,384 41 42,085

2 27,156 66 13,766 34 40,922

3 20,220 61 13,184 39 33,404

4A 28,500 61 18,488 39 46,988

4B 26,099 69 11,955 31 38,054

5 11,598 57 8,775 43 20,373

Luzon 159,241 62 96,633 38 255,884 50.19%

6 12,178 52 11,163 48 23,341

7 17,797 57 13,157 43 30,954

8 31,492 58 22,664 42 54,156

Visayas 61,467 57 46,984 43 108,451 21.27

9 13,066 59 9,249 41 22,315

10 24,793 63 14,430 37 39,223

11 16,475 65 8,896 35 25,371

12 13,328 63 7,858 37 21,186

13 23,564 63 13,871 37 37,435

Mindanao 91,226 63 54,304 37 145,530 28.54%

Table 6Number of Issued Public Land Patents (Free Patent, Miscellaneous Sales and

Homestead Patent) from 2003 to 2007

* Data from Region IX and X for 2006 are not sex-disaggregated.

* No data from Region V for 2006.

* No data from ARMM.

Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)

CADTs in Luzon (46 CADTs) is four CADTs higher than in

Mindanao (42 CADTs), the total size of land area covered and

the number of individual benefi ciaries are higher in Mindanao



(1,248,970.2027 hectares with 245,186 individual benefi ciaries)

than in Luzon (1,029,744.6881 hectares with 216,342 individual

benefi ciaries). With the approval of their CADTs, the rights of

at least 21 tribes in Mindanao over their respective ancestral

domains have been recognized by the government. This has

been made possible by the enactment and implementation of

the Indigenous People’s Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997 or Republic

Act 8371.

The Moros do not appear to be included in the above list of

tribes. According to the National Commission on Indigenous

People (NCIP), this was because they did not categorize

themselves as an indigenous people or tribe during the

preparation and enactment of the IPRA law, and therefore

excluded themselves from its coverage. This situation may be

related to the national struggle of the Moros for the recognition

of Bangsamoro rather than for their separation into distinct

tribes. However, the NCIP said that Moro tribes can still avail

of CADTs, if they opt to. If the tribe is within their mandate

(i.e., included in their list of 110 tribes), the NCIP can act on

this Moro tribe’s application for CADT in coordination with the

O1 ce of Southern Cultural Communities-Autonomous Region

in Muslim Mindanao (OSCC-ARMM). For instance, a CADT has

been issued to the Sama-Bangingi tribe in Lantawan, Basilan.

The fi ve land disputes of this study cannot be understood if

divorced from its historical and situational contexts. Some of

the recommendations for the resolution of land tenure disputes,

as discussed in the Conclusion Section, were thus drawn from

this fi rst section.



RegionNo. of CADTs

Area (in Hectares)

No. of Individual

Benefi ciariesTribes/IPs that Benefi ted

CAR 12 210,933.0116 119 847 Bago, Kankanaey, Ibaloi, Isnag, Kalanguya, Ayangan, Tuwali, Karao

1 4 21,222.1352 17,174.00 Kankayana-ey, Bago, Ibaloi

2 9 399,338.72 35,423.00 Aeta, Ichbayat-Ivatan, Kalanguya-Ikalahan, Ibatan, Ayangan, Tuwali, Agta, Kalanguya-Ayangan

3 6 66,315.9378 10,356.00 Aeta, Dumagat, Kalanguya,

4B 7 103,347.0942 8,205 Mangyan Tagabukid, Tagbanua, Iraya-Mangyan, Tadyawan-Mangyan, Tau-Buid Mangyan, Tadyawan,

5 5 28,670.8897 9,274 Agta-Cimarron/Tabangnon, Agta/Agta-Tabangnon, Agta, Kabihug,

1 & 2* 1 5,484.1101 248 Iwak

2 & 3* 2 194,432.7889 15,815.00 Bugkalot & Ilongot, Agta

LUZON 46 1,029,744.6881 216,342

6 3 16,416.0343 3,271.00 Panay-Bukidnon/Sulod, Iraynon-Bukidnon, Bukidnon/Mangahat

7 1 3,981.2501 4,140 Bukidnon-Karulanos

VISAYAS 4 20,397.2844 7,411

9 6 86,746.6278 21,424 Subanon, Subanen, Bajau,

10 7 64,918.45 13,476 Talaandig, Manobo, Higaonon, Bukidnon

11 11 574,825.74 68,420 Mandaya, Manobo, Mangguangan & Dibabawon, Mandaya-Mansaka, Bagobo-Tagabawa, Dibabawon, B’laan, Man-saka, Ubo-Manuvu

12 7 196,081.42 79,648 Aromanon-Manobo, Obo-Menuvu, Bagobo-Tagabawa, T’boli & Blaan, T’boli. Manubo, Tasaday, Blaan-Tagakaulo, Ubo-Manobo

13 9 221,399.88 34,331 Manobo, Mamanwa, Mandaya, Banwa-on

ARMM 1 2,673.2682 3,482 Sama Bangingi

10 & 12* 1 102,324.8186 24,405.00 Matigsalug-Manobo

MINDANAO 42 1,248,970.2027 245,186

PHIL 92 2,299,112.1752 468,939.00

Table 7Approved CADTs from 2002 to November 15, 2008

* CADT covers two regions.

Source: National Commission on Indigenous People (NCIP)


,

24

Laws and Issuances Affecting the Moro Lands

The Bangsamoro people, like the other in-

digenous peoples in the Philippines, were

not spared by the havoc of colonization.

The Bangsamoro natural resources, their

posterity and wealth fell in the hands of

their colonizers whether through the ef-

fect of the marginalization, occupation by

foreign colonizers, or what Moro author Salah Jubair called the

“legalized land grabbing” e& ected by the laws and issuances pur-

posely enacted or issued to give way to the government-spon-

sored acquisition of Moro lands (Jubair, 1999). Rudy Rodil also

described “legalized land dispossession”, initiated and nurtured

in colonial times as a fatal aspect in their story of minoritization

(Rodil, 2003).

The Bangsamoro has fought centuries of bloody wars in their

struggle for the full recognition of their right to self-determina-

tion and to remain free from foreign colonialism. They demand

rights over their ancestral domain which they believe have con-

tinued to hold them since time immemorial. Even long before the

ascension of the Spanish regime in what is now the Philippines,

the Bangsamoros believed that they already had concrete bases

to claim their ancestral domain based on “original pre-conquest

vested rights” and Moro sultanate dominion based on “treaty-

based rights and “prior possession of territory” (Mastura, 2008).

Before the Islamization of Mindanao, indigenous laws called

adat or customary law formed the basis of landownership and

use among the Bangsamoro ethnolinguistic groups. When the

fi rst Muslim missionary landed on Philippine shores in the

13th century, he brought with him a new faith. With this new

faith were new laws, and the natives who embraced Islam came

within the fold of Islamic law. As years passed, more and more

inhabitants became Muslims, until most of the archipelago of

the Philippine islands lived under the banner Islam. Thus as

centuries passed, a greater number of people were governed by

Islamic law. However, Islamic law was in a sense infused with

the adat or customary law. The laws of Islam and the age-old



customs of the place were therefore mingled. Still, Islamic law

prevailed over customary laws in cases of confl ict (Abbas, 1977).

The Philippine Muslims since the early centuries were

already enjoying a relatively high degree of civilization (Abbas,

1977). The sultanates in Sulu and Maguindanao were part of

a constellation of Sultanates in Southeast Asia. These sultan-

ates were Muslim outposts, governed by Islamic law and their

respective customs and traditions (Abbas, 1977). They had their

own courts which they called agama and their own judges. For

many centuries, Islamic law prevailed in the islands of Mind-

anao and Sulu, and with it, the customs of the respective

Sultanates governed and regulated the lives of these people. Not

even the recognition of the externally imposed Philippine state

laws in Bangsamoro areas, a result of the inclusion of Mindan-

ao-Sulu to the Philippine territory with the Treaty of Paris of

December 10, 1898, stopped these practices.

Adat, which literally means custom and usages, or simply

customary law, embraces all the customs and traditions of the

Malayan community which were given, through usage, the force

of law in the course of time. They were enforced by tribal elders

and chiefs. The Adat law resembles the Common Law in Eng-

land. Like the Common Law, it is based on reason and common

sense known in jurisprudence as equity. The adat law is prin-

cipally unwritten, being a case law adapting to changes in time.

An adat one hundred years ago may no longer be an acceptable

adat today (Buat, 1973).

Land ownership was recognized by the Adat law. The land

was owned either by the Sultan or the tribes. The land belong-

ing to the Sultan, by virtue of his o- ce, may be equivalent to our

concept of state land. The Sultan had the right to lease or grant

this land. The other concept of land ownership was the so-called

communal (Pusaka) land ownership. The Sultan or the state had

no right to alienate these lands because they were ancestral land

and belonged to the tribes. The members of the tribe may delin-

eate the boundaries of their lands with markers. The claim to a

tribal land is usually proven by existence of an ancestor’s tomb

or tampat (Buat, 1973).

The adat among the Moros is based on the notion that there

can be no absolute ownership of land. Islamic principles hold

that land and all creation belong to God and that human beings

are trustees or stewards of God’s creation. Thus, among Moros,

land-holding was based on the right to the produce of the land

(Muslim & Cagoco-Guiam, 1999).

In Islam, while the right of property is sanctioned, it is far

from being the absolute right prevailing in the capitalist system,

where, as a rule property is managed according to the ultimate

discretion of the owner. In Islam, an individual is a mere trustee

of all property in his or her possession, bound to comply with

all the duties of a wise and honest trusteeship. Everything in

the universe is owned by God; and humans are only the interim

owner. As such, humans, with respect to all properties in their

possession, are bound by certain obligations.

1. They must devote all their energy, intellect and ability

to the task of utilizing their property in such a way as to

contribute to the advancement of the interest of the com-

munity. This obligation is based on Islam’s abhorrence of



poverty and exhortation of Muslims to be industrious in

promoting their material welfare.

2. They must assign a defi nite annual portion of their capi-

tal wealth to the benefi t of the needy classes in their com-

munity. If one is reluctant to fulfi ll it, it can be enforced

by the state. This is called Zakat. Charity is an obligation

in Islam, enforceable by law.

3. They must give endowments for the cause of “public

good”. This obligation is also based on the owner’s allot-

ted share of state taxes, required for the upkeep of the

community (Abbas, 1977, p. 130).

The economic e0 ect of this concept of private ownership

in Islam is well summed up in these words of Dr. Muhammad

Abdullah El-Araby:

In Islam, the institution of private property is directed to the

benefi t of the owner of the property thus maintaining the incen-

tive of self-interest, an essential requisite of economic growth.

At the same time, the institution, through its duties based on

the theory of trusteeship, is directed jointly to the service of the

community. This harmonious balance of confl ict of interests

eliminates class hatred, a3 rms social cohesion, reduces the

possibilities of accumulation of wealth in the hands of a limited

group, and develops a more equitable distribution of national

income (Abbas, 1977 p. 131).

The following are brief discussion of the laws, rules,

regulations and issuances relevant to the land tenure study

and those that contributed to the land tenure problem of the

Bangsamoro people.

Spanish Colonial Period

1. Law of the Indies (Book 4, Title 12, Law 14)

The Royal Decrees and Orders of the Spanish colonial govern-

ment did not fully recognize the indigenous people’s concept

of land and ownership, and e0 ectively disregarded the rights of

the indigenous peoples they had conquered over their ancestral

domains. The Laws of the Indies, a compilation of Spanish laws

implemented during the time of colonization, more specifi cally

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

lands they were to colonize later on. This section provides that:

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 or grant be restored

to us according 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, confi rming 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 praetorial courts designate, at such

time as shall to them seem more expedient, a suitable

period within which all possessors of tracts, farms,

plantations, and estates shall exhibit to them, and to the

court o" cers 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.1

Then Philippine Supreme Court Associate Justice (now Chief

Justice) Reynato S. Puno2 in his Separate Opinion to the case

Cruz vs. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources,3 re-

counted that private land titles could only be acquired either by

purchase or by the various modes of land grant from the Crown:

The Philippines passed to Spain by virtue of “discovery” and

conquest. Consequently, all lands became the exclusive patri-

mony and dominion of the Spanish Crown. The Spanish Gov-

ernment 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 either by purchase or

by the various modes of land grant from the Crown.4

2. The Regalian Doctrine

Also known as “Jura Regalia”, this Western legal concept refers

to the state’s power of dominium or the state’s capacity to own or

acquire property. In his Separate Opinion to the case Cruz vs.

Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, Justice Puno

emphasized that the Regalian Doctrine is both a “feudal theory”

and a “Western legal concept”:

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 fi rst introduced by the Spaniards into the

country through the Laws of the Indies and the Royal

Cedula.5

But credible writers assert that the Regalian Doctrine is

nothing but a Spanish legal fi ction. Rodil dubbed it “legal fi ction

because no such law ever existed”.6 Rodil claimed that Regalian

Doctrine was the basis of the Spaniards in selling to the Ameri-

cans the territories of Las Islas Filipinas and the independent

Moro sultanates which Spain did not conquer. Regalian Doc-

trine allegedly regarded all Spanish-occupied lands as property

of Spain. Rodil explained that (Rodil, 2003, pp 103-104):

It is said that Spain’s discovery of the Philippine

archipelago gave the Spanish crown, as was the

practice among European expansionists in the

15th and 16th centuries, possessory rights over the

islands. Since the King stood for the Spanish State,

it was understood that his dominion was also state

dominion, and the King or the State reserves the

right and the authority to dispose of lands therein to

its subjects and in accordance with its laws.



The Regalian Doctrine is regarded as a legal fi ction

because no such law ever existed. In any case, it was

on the basis of this authority that the Spanish crown

handed down a law in 1894 commanding its subjects

in the Philippine colony to register their lands. It

was presumably on the basis of this authority that

Spain ceded the entire Philippine archipelago to

the United States through the Treaty of Paris of 10

December 1898).

Fergus MacKay explained that Regalian Doctrine is just a

“fi ction of Spanish colonial law wherein all lands discovered and

colonized by Spain belonged to the Crown” (Colchester, 2001):

The Regalian Doctrine, also known as “jura regalia”,

is a fi ction of Spanish colonial law that has been said

to apply to all Spanish colonial landholdings. It refers

to the feudal principle that private title to land must

emanate, directly or indirectly, from the Spanish

Crown with the latter retaining the underlying

title. Lands and resources not granted by the Crown

remain part of the public domain over which none

but the sovereign holds rights.

In their Comment-in-Intervention Senator Juan Flavier, Ben-

nagen, and 112 Indigenous Peoples in the case Cruz vs. Secretary

of Environment and Natural Resources, asserted that the Regalian

Doctrine was a “mythical and historically fallacious principle

that permeates the thinking but has prompted little refl ection

within the Filipino legal profession” and that “The Regalian

Doctrine is a legal fi ction” (Flavier et al, 2001, p.225).

June Prill-Brett (2003) also believed that the Regalian Doc-

trine is a legal fi ction: “The problem confronting indigenous

claimants to ancestral lands can be traced back in Philippine

history to the legal fi ction called the Regalian Doctrine. In 1521

the Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan claimed the Phil-

ippine archipelago for the Spanish Crown, by virtue of erecting

the Christian cross on one of the more than 7000 islands”.

Historical accounts show that prior to the Spanish coloniza-

tion, indigenous communities held lands collectively. With the

coming of the Spaniards, however, the colonial government—

while protecting pre-existing communal holdings under certain

conditions—began to distribute land grants to private individuals

on the basis of this doctrine, which created the assumption that

all lands in Luzon and Visayas were owned by the King of Spain.

The American colonial administration, which succeeded

Spain by virtue of the Treaty of Paris of December 10, 1898, did

not, however, recognize nor give importance, to the Regalian

Doctrine. In managing the a5 airs of the Philippine Islands, the

Americans based their right and title from conquest and the

treaty of cession and not from Regalian Doctrine. In deciding

the celebrated case Cariño vs. Insular Government in 1909, the

US Supreme Court speaking through Associate Justice Oliver

Wendell Holmes ruled out Regalian Doctrine and declared it as

mere “theory and discourse.”7 The US Supreme Court awarded

the controversial 146-hectare land in Baguio to Mateo Cariño

who belonged to the Igorot tribe, which was never brought

under the civil or military government of Spain. Justice Holmes

wrote that: “It might, perhaps, be proper and su8 cient to say

that when, as far back as testimony or memory goes, the land has



been held by individuals under a claim of private ownership, it

will be presumed to have been held in the same way from before

the Spanish conquest, and never to have been public land.”

Justice Holmes further ruled that the Regalian Doctrine was

“an almost forgotten law of Spain”:

Upon a consideration of the whole case we are of

opinion that law and justice require that the applicant

should be granted what he seeks, and should not be

deprived of what by the practice and belief of those

among whom he lived, was his property, through a

refi ned interpretation of an almost forgotten law of

Spain.8

By the passing of time, the American colonial government did

not recognize communal landholdings; instead, it applied a new

system of land acquisition, registration and titling by individuals

in the Philippines, which exists until today, known as the Tor-

rens system of land registration.

3. Royal Decree of June 25, 1880

Published in the Gaceta de Manila on September 8, 1880, the

Royal Decree of June 25, 1880 is said to have marked the be-

ginning of modern Spanish land legislation in the Philippines

(Vargas & Manalac, 1936). But this Royal Decree was in force

only from its publication until April 17, 1894.

The Decreto del Gobierno General de 1880 underscored that

all persons in possession of real property were to be considered

owners provided they had occupied and possessed their claimed

land in good faith since 1870. In order to be considered owners

of lands claimed, the decree required voluntary registration or

“adjustment” of ownership.

The Royal Decree of June 25, 1880 imposed certain regula-

tions pertaining to “royal lands” or terrenos realengos in Las Islas

Filipinas of which the Mindanao-Sulu-Palawan region was not a

part. This royal decree defi ned royal lands as (Peña, 1961):

Art. 1. For the purposes of these regulations and

in conformity with law 14, title 12, book 4 of the

Recompilation of Laws of the Indies, the following

will be regarded as royal lands: All lands whose

lawful ownership is not vested in some private

person, or, what is the same thing, which have never

passed to private ownership by virtue of cession by

competent authorities, made either gratuitously or

for a consideration.

This royal decree which dealt with “royal lands” defi nitely

excluded the Moro territories in Mindanao and Sulu. For, by the

time it was issued in 1880, Spain failed to conquer the Moros.

Certainly, Governor-General Fernando Primo de Rivera9 failed

to totally implement it for his administration was “marked by

corruption in public o7 ces” which led to his dismissal and the

assumption of Emilio Molins10 as governor ad interim e8 ective

March 10, 1883 (Blair & Robertson, 1903-1909, p. 310).

In his Separate Opinion in Cruz vs. Secretary of Environment

and Natural Resources, Supreme Court Associate Justice



Santiago M. Kapunan11 wrote that the Royal Decree of 1880 and

1894 “did not extinguish native title to land in the Philippines”:

The royal decrees of 1880 and 1894 did not extinguish

native title to land in the Philippines. The earlier royal

decree, dated June 25, 1880, provided that all those

in “unlawful possession of royal lands” must legalize

their possession by means of adjustment proceedings,

and within the period specifi ed. The later royal

decree, dated February 13, 1894, otherwise known as

the Maura Law, declared that titles that were capable

of adjustment under the royal decree of 1880, but for

which adjustment was not sought, were forfeited.12

The Royal Decree of June 25, 1880 which declared ownership

over the land possessed by anybody for an uninterrupted period

of 10 years by virtue of a good title and in good faith, had not

been imposed upon the Moros by virtue of the Moro-Spanish

war. It must be noted that during the Spanish regime in Las Islas

Filipinas, i.e. Luzon and the Visayas, the land titles granted by

the Spanish colonial government varied in forms, according to

the circumstances under which they were acquired. Thus the

Spaniards imposed upon the Indios the following modes of land

titling as mandated by the Royal Decree of June 25, 1880: (a)

titulo real (Royal grant); (b) concesion especial (special grant); (c)

composicion con el estado (adjustment title); (d) titulo de compra

(title by purchase); and (e) informacion posesoria (possessory

information title) (Peña, 1961).

4. Royal Decree of February 26, 1886 (Zaide & Zaide, 1990,

pp. 346-347)

Issued by Spain’s Queen Regent Maria Cristina, this Real Decreto

de 26 de Febrero de 1886 (Royal Decree of February 26, 1886)

enumerated nineteen (19) provinces that come under the e6 ec-

tive administration of the Spanish Crown. These provinces were

all situated in Luzon and the Visayas regions. The Moro territo-

ries were excluded from the territorial jurisdiction of Las Islas

Filipinas as defi ned under the decree.

In some writings, this is usually cited as the basis for a7 rm-

ing the exclusion and independence of the Moro territories from

the Spanish-held territories of Luzon, Visayas, and some Pacifi c

islands; and for asserting that the area of the Moro is a free state

and a free nation.

As stipulated in the Royal Decree, those 19 civil provinces

which were ruled by the Spaniards were composed of the

following: Manila, Albay, Batangas, Bulacan, Ilocos Norte, Ilocos

Sur, Laguna, Pampanga, Pangasinan, Bataan, Camarines Norte,

Camarines Sur, Mindoro, Nueva Ecija, Tayabas, Zambales,

Cagayan, Isabela, and Nueva Viscaya.

The issuance of this Royal Decree only proved that the Moro

territories of Mindanao and Sulu remained outside of Spanish

sovereignty. Ramon Reyes Lala wrote in his book The Philippine

Islands that under the Royal Decree of February 26, 1886, only

18 civil provinces, each headed by a Spanish governor, formed

part of the Spanish colony. Lala explained that when Sulu was

included in the Royal Decree even though Spain was not able to



colonize it, the originally 18-province Spanish-held territories

became 19 provinces, thus:

In the new order of things instituted by a decree

from the Queen-Regent Maria Cristina, the 26th

of February, 1886, 18 Civil Governorships were

created, and the Alcaldes’ functions were confi ned

to their Judgeships. And thus the former frightful

distortion of justice was overcome and banished. So,

too, under this law of 1886 each Civil Governor has

a Secretary, who serves as a check upon his chief, if

he be illegally inclined. Accordingly, two new o, cial

safeguards were thus erected in the fabric of Colonial

Administration in these 18 di- erent provinces.

The colony was then divided into 19 civil provinces, includ-

ing Sulu, and into three grand military divisions (Lala, 1899, pp

58-60).

5. Ley Hipotecaria or the Spanish Mortgage Law of 1893

The Ley Hipotecaria or the Spanish Mortgage Law of 1893 pro-

vided for the systematic registration of titles and deeds as well

as possessory claims. In the case Collado vs. Court of Appeals

promulgated on October 4, 2002, the Supreme Court explicitly

stated that:

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 Royal Decree of 1894 or the “Maura Law”

partly amended the Mortgage Law as well as the Law

of the Indies. The Maura Law was the last Spanish

land law promulgated in the Philippines. It required

the “adjustment” or registration of all agricultural

lands, otherwise the lands would revert to the state.

6. Royal Decree of May 19, 1893 (Maura Law)

In an e- ort to reform the local government administration in

Luzon and the Visayas, Queen Regent Maria Cristina promul-

gated on May 19, 1893, the Real Decreto de 19 de Mayo de 1893

which was penned by Spain’s Colonial Minister and later Prime

Minister Don Antonio Maura y Montañer. This royal decree,

later called the Maura Law of May 19, 1893 , defi ned the scope

and power of local governments in the 19-province Filipinas

pursuant to the earlier issued Royal Decree of February 26, 1886.

Article I, Section 2 of the Maura Law, provides:

Art. 2. Habrá un Tribunal municipal en cada pueblo

de las Islas de Luzon y de Visayas que, no habiéndose

constituido en Ayuntamiento, según lo que ordeno el

Real decreto de 12 de Noviembre de 1889, contribuya

al Estado con mas de mil cedulas al año.

The English translation of that provision runs as

follows:

Section 2. There shall be a Municipal Tribunal in

each town of Luzon and the Visayas which, not having

constituted itself into a municipality, as prescribed by

the Royal Decree of November 12, 1889, contributes

to the State more than one thousand cedulas a year.



One can conclude from that provision that the Maura Law

was only applicable to Luzon and the Visayas islands and not to

Mindanao and Sulu.

But the new municipal set-up stipulated under the Maura Law

due to take e# ect on January 1, 1894 did not materialize because

of the detection of Katipunan-led Andres Bonifacio the Maniolo

revolt of Emilio Aguinaldo. On account of this, Governor-General

Camilo Polavieja issued Order on December 24, 1896 suspending

the local elections in Luzon and the Visayas that was to be held in

December 1896 pursuant to Section 10 of the Maura Law.

By the time Governor-General Blanco started enforcing the

Maura Law, James A. LeRoy wrote, it was “somewhat altered

and revised, and many of its more promising provisions for local

autonomy had in most towns remained in reality dead letters

up to the time when revolt broke out in the Tagalog provinces in

1896; elections under the new law were suspended, and martial

law established” (LeRoy, 1903-1909).

Laurel explained that although a belated measure of Spain

to reform Las Islas Filipinas, the Maura Law was a “credit-

able piece of legislation intended to transplant into Luzon and

Visayas the democratic institutions that were beginning to

develop in Spain” (LeRoy, 1903-1909, p. 51). Laurel expounded

further that the intent of the Maura Law “was to confer upon the

towns and provinces of Luzon and the Visayan Islands a greater

measure of autonomy”.

American legal scholar Owen J. Lynch, Jr., opined that: “The

Maura Law provided the legal basis by which the US colonial

regime denied any e# ective recognition of ancestral property

rights. More signifi cantly, the philosophy behind the Maura Law

provided the legal foundation for the prevailing twentieth-cen-

tury version of the Regalian Doctrine” (Lynch, 1988, p. 109).

Judging from Lynch’s legal opinion, therefore, the Bangsam-

oro people assert that the decree did not take e# ect on them

since they were never in fact conquered by the Spaniards. If this

rule will apply to them, it would mean loss of almost the entire

lands of the Bangsamoro to the State solely by reason that the

Moro people did not bother to register under the system or, in

most cases, did not recognize the authority of the Spaniards.

7. Treaty of Paris (December 10, 1898)

By virtue of the Treaty of Paris of 1898, Spain ceded the Philip-

pine Islands to the United States. It relinquished all its rights,

interests, and claims over territories delimited in Article III of

the treaty in consideration of Twenty Million Dollars (USD 20

million) payable to Spain within three months after the ex-

change of its ratifi cation. In the delimitations, the territories of

the Moros of Mindanao and Sulu were “illegally and immorally

annexed.” The late MILF Chairman Salamat Hashim divulged

this view to Carolyn O. Arguillas when she interviewed him on

April 15, 2000 in Camp Abubakre As-Siddique:

When the Philippine government annexed our

homeland, it was illegal and immoral. And since the

annexation of the Bangsamoro homeland was illegal

and immoral, then we’re not dismembering the

country. This is not originally part of the Philippines.

Annexation is a violation of human rights. This will



show the Philippine government is a barbarous

government, a perpetrator of human rights

violations. Now we ask the Philippine government

to pave the way for the peaceful and democratic

return of independence to our people or we will fi ght

forever. History has shown our people fought for

over 300 years the Spaniards and the Americans. If

our ancestors managed to fi ght that long, the present

generation can fi ght the Philippine government

forever. So which is better? Fight forever or solve the

problem democratically?

The Bangsamoro people contend that Spain and the United

States regarded the treaty as including the Bangsamoro home-

land, without consulting their Sultanates and notwithstanding

the fact that Mindanao and its islands did not become part of

the properties belonging to the Spanish crown. Thus, Salamat

Hashim’s viewpoint may have been an o) shoot of the revelation

of Don Eugenio Montero Rios, President of the Spanish Com-

mission which negotiated the Treaty of Paris, that Mindanao

and Sulu “never formed a part of the Philippine Archipelago

proper.” The letter of Rios to his counterpart, American Com-

missioner William R. Day, reads in full as follows:

Hon. WILLIAM R. DAY,

President of the American Commission for Peace with

Spain.

MY DEAR AND ESTEEMED SIR, In order to push to

the utmost the work which has been entrusted by the

two Governments to one and the other Commission

and which now requires a prompt termination, I beg

you, in the name of this Commission, to be pleased

to propose to that worthily headed by you whether

it is willing to accept, by way of compromise in re the

sovereignty of the Philippine Archipelago, any of the

three propositions following:

A. “Relinquishment by Spain of her sovereignty

over Cuba and cession of Porto Rico and other

Antilles, Island of Guam in the Ladrones and the

Philippine Archipelago, including Mindanao and

Sulu, to the United States, the latter paying to Spain

the sum of one hundred million ($100,000,000)

dollars as compensation for her sovereignty in the

Archipelago and the works of public utility she

has executed during her rule in all the islands of

the East and West the sovereignty over which she

relinquishes and cedes.”

B. “Cession to the United States of the Island of

Cusaye in the Carolines, of the right to land a cable

on any of these or of the Marianas, while they

remain under Spanish rule, and (cesion) of the

Philippine Archipelago proper, that is, beginning

on the North, the Islands of Batanes, Babuyanes,

Luzon, Visayas, and all the others following to the

south as far as the Sulu Sea, Spain reserving to the

south of this sea the Islands of Mindanao and Sulu

which have never formed a part of the Philippine

Archipelago proper. (Emphasis supplied)



“The United States, as compensation for said

islands, for the right to land cables and for the

public works executed by Spain in said islands

during her rule, will pay to Spain the sum of fi fty

million ($50,000,000) dollars.”

C. “Spain relinquishes her sovereignty over Cuba

and gratuitously cedes to the United States the

Philippine Archipelago proper, besides Porto

Rico, the other West Indies and the Island of

Guam, which she cedes as compensation for the

expenses of the war and as indemnity to American

citizens for injuries su+ ered since the beginning

of the last Cuban insurrection.

“The United States and Spain will submit to an

arbitral tribunal what are the debts and obligations

of a colonial character which should pass with the

islands the sovereignty over which Spain relinquishes

and cedes.”

I beg you that said Commission be pleased to

deliberate over each of these propositions so that,

should it consider anyone of them acceptable, it may

be communicated to me, should you be so disposed,

before Monday next, the 28th instant, or your mind

being already made up, on that day (which is the one

set in the last proposition of the said Commission)

when the two Commissions may meet jointly at the

usual hour of two, p. m., at which session this, the

Spanish Commission, will give its fi nal reply, upon

which, according to the answer of the American,

must depend the continuation or termination of

these conferences.

I remain, with the greatest consideration, your

obedient servant.

Signed: E. MONTERO RIOS.

PARIS, November 23, 1898.

Dr. Onofre D. Corpus (2005) argued that:

By the time treaty negotiators were parleying in Paris,

there was no longer any vestige of Spanish control,

possession or government in Filipinas (that is to say

the Christian part of the archipelago). And Spain never

had control, government nor possession of the Moro

territory. It did not have any “suspended sovereignty”

because its sovereignty had been terminated.

At the time of the negotiations in Paris, the Moros were then

engaged in war with the Spaniards. Thus, the Spaniards could

never impose titling of Moro lands in the same way as it had

done in the Visayas and Luzon areas. President William McKin-

ley said in his Benevolent Assimilation Proclamation issued on

December 21, 1898 that the US’s “rights of sovereignty” emanat-

ing from the Treaty of Paris “is to be extended with all possible

dispatch to the whole of the ceded territory,” which means

Luzon and Visayas plus the Moro territories which were an-

nexed without the plebiscitary consent of the Moros. And thus

proclaimed McKinley:



The destruction of the Spanish fl eet in the harbor

of Manila by the United States naval squadron

commanded by Rear-Admiral Dewey, followed by

the reduction of the city and the surrender of the

Spanish forces, practically e$ ected the conquest

of the Philippine Islands and the suspension of

Spanish sovereignty therein. With the signature of

the treaty of peace between the United States and

Spain by their respective plenipotentiaries at Paris

on the 10th instant, and as a result of the victories

of American arms, the future control, disposition,

and government of the Philippine Islands are ceded

to the United States. In the fulfi llment of the rights

of sovereignty thus acquired and the responsible

obligations of government thus assumed, the actual

occupation and administration of the entire group

of the Philippine Islands becomes immediately

necessary, and the military government heretofore

maintained by the United States in the city, harbor,

and bay of Manila is to be extended with all possible

dispatch to the whole of the ceded territory. In

performing this duty the military commander of

the United States is enjoined to make known to

the inhabitants of the Philippine Islands that in

succeeding to the sovereignty of Spain, in severing

the former political relations, and in establishing

a new political power, the authority of the United

States is to be exerted for the securing of the persons

and property of the people of the islands and for the

confi rmation of all their private rights and relations.

By the defeat and conquest of Spanish forces in Manila,

McKinley asserted that Spanish sovereignty, which perhaps

included the Regalian Doctrine, if ever, was suspended. Notice

that the phrase used by McKinley in asserting control over the

Philippine Islands was “rights of sovereignty” and not Regalian

Doctrine.

American Government in Moro Land (1898-1946)

1. Kiram-Bates Treaty of August of 1899

Brig. General John Bates, representing the United States, and

Sultan Jamalul Kiram II of the Sultanate of Sulu, signed this

treaty on August 20, 1899. The treaty defi ned the relations of

the American Government and the Sulu Sultanate as that of a

protectorate state and provided that there should be no direct

interference in the a$ airs of the Sulu Sultanate.

Under the treaty provisions, the sovereignty of the American

over the whole archipelago of Jolo and its dependencies shall be

acknowledged; while the Sulu Moros were not to be interfered

with on account of their religion and all their religious customs

were to be respected.

This treaty was, however, declared null and void by US Presi-

dent Roosevelt in 1904. This abrogation of the treaty enabled

the American government to shift from military to civilian rule.

2. Philippine Bill of 1902 – Philippine Organic Act

The Philippine Bill of 1902 or the Philippine Organic Act (also,

Cooper Act of July 1, 1902) was the fi rst organic law for the



Philippine Islands enacted by the United States Congress. It

provided for the creation of the Philippine Assembly and other

instrumentalities of the colonial government. It must be noted

that Philippine Bill of 1902 did not apply to the Moros because

they were still at war with the Americans at that time. Section

7 of such law provided that the census of the population to be

undertaken for the purpose of the elections for the Philippine

Assembly shall only be done “in areas not inhabited by Moros

and other non-Christian tribes.” As such:

Sec. 7. That two years after the completion and

publication of the census, in case such condition of

general and complete peace with recognition of the

authority of the United States shall have continued

in the territory of said Islands not inhabited by

Moros or other non-Christian tribes and such facts

shall have been certifi ed to the President by the

Philippine Commission, the President upon being

satisfi ed thereof shall direct Commission to call,

and the Commission shall call, a general election

for the choice of delegates to a popular assembly

of the people of said territory in the Philippine

Islands, which shall be known as the Philippine

Assembly. After said Assembly shall have convened

and organized, all the legislative power heretofore

conferred on the Philippine Commission in all

that part of said Islands not inhabited by Moros

or other non-Christian tribes shall be vested in a

Legislature consisting of two Houses—the Philippine

Commission and the Philippine Assembly.

Specifi cally on property rights, the Act in essence contained

the following provisions:

• Classifi cation of agricultural lands as well as lease, sale,

and disposition of public lands other forest and mineral

lands, provided, “That a single homestead entry shall not

exceed sixteen hectares in extent.” (Section 13);

• Perfection of title to public lands and issuance of patents

to any native of the Philippine Islands, “conveying title

to any tract of land not more than sixteen hectares in

extent, which were public lands and had been actually oc-

cupied by such native or his ancestors prior to and on the

thirteenth of August, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight”

(Section 14);

• Grant, sale, or conveyance to actual occupants and set-

tlers of portions of public domain other than forest and

mineral lands “not exceeding sixteen hectares to any one

person and for the sale and conveyance of not more than

one thousand and twenty-four hectares to any corpora-

tion or association of persons.” (Section 15);

• Preference to actual occupants and settlers in all such

grant or sale of any part of the public domain, as well as

prohibition against sale of any such public lands in the

actual possession or occupancy of any native without

obtaining their prior consent to the sale, “Provided, That

the prior right hereby secured to an occupant of land,

who can show no other proof of title than possession,

shall not apply to more than sixteen hectares in any one

tract.” (Section 16);

• Inalienability of forest and timber lands, “and the said

Government may lease land to any person or persons

holding such licenses, su6 cient for a mill site, not to



exceed four hectares in extent, and may grant rights of

way to enable such person or persons to get access to the

lands to which such licenses apply.” (Sections 17 and 18)

• Inalienability of mineral lands, free and open exploration

of mineral resources, and procedures on mineral claims

(Sections 21 to 46)

The above provisions have also been enshrined in the rel-

evant provisions of the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions.

But even after the e1 ectivity of the Philippine Bill of 1902,

the Moros were still not pacifi ed and their areas not subjected to

census or even land titling. Thus while Emilio Aguinaldo was al-

ready defeated on April 19, 1901 by virtue of his surrender to the

Americans, the Moros were still waging war against the Ameri-

cans. And so on July 4, 1902, US President Theodore Roosevelt

issued a Proclamation formally ending the Aguinaldo insurrec-

tion but which Proclamation did not apply to the Moros:

Whereas, the insurrection against the authority and

sovereignty of the United States is now at an end,

and peace has been established in all parts of the

archipelago except in the country inhabited by the

Moro tribes, to which this proclamation does not

apply;…

3. Act No. 496, Land Registration Act (November 6, 1902)

and Torrens System

Under Act No. 496, otherwise known as the Land Registration

Law of 1902, all grants of public land were brought under the

operation of the Torrens System of Titling. Enacted by the

Philippine Commission on November 6, 1902, the Act placed

all public and private lands under the Torrens system. The law

almost copied word for word the Massachusetts Land Regis-

tration Act of 1898, which, in turn, followed the principles and

procedure of the Torrens system of registration formulated by

Sir Robert Torrens who patterned it after the Merchant Ship-

ping Acts in South Australia.

The Act, which was later amended by Presidential Decree

No. 1529 or the Property Registration Decree of 1978, primarily

sought to determine the extent of private landholdings in the

country, promote voluntary registration of individual ownership

of private lands.

The Torrens system requires that the government issue an

O7 cial Certifi cate of Title (OCT), popularly known as the Tor-

rens Title, attesting to the fact that the person or corporations

whose name appears on the Title is the owner of the property

described, subject only to liens and encumbrances that may

be noted or to any warrant or reservation made under the law.

The Torrens Title or Certifi cate of Title is “indefeasible, and

imprescriptible” (cannot be defeated and does not end) and all

claims to the parcel of land are quieted upon issuance of the said

certifi cate. Sec. 21 of the Act provides that:

“The application shall be in writing, signed and

sworn to by the applicant, or by some person duly

authorized in his behalf. All oaths required by this

Act may be administered by any o7 cer authorized to

administer oaths in the Philippine Islands.”



Rodil (2003, p. 105) stressed that the very matter of registra-

tion was not only totally alien to the indigenous communities,

most of them would have been unable to comply, illiterate that

they were, even if by some miracle they acquired the desire to

register. Also, what would they register? There was no room for

registration of communal lands. Salah Jubair (1999) expounded

that “By a simple piece of legislation, the Moros became land-

less and were deprived of their land holdings. Under this Act,

a Moro was allowed to apply for a piece of land, not exceeding

four hectares, while a Christian was entitled to own up to 24

hectares, and a corporation, wholly owned by non-Moros, was

permitted to get 1,024 hectares” (p. 103).

As a consequence of the titling requirement to prove individual

ownership, the Moros, like the indigenous peoples in other parts

of the country, assert that this system of titling contravened their

traditional modes of land ownership and use. Aside from outright

defi ance to colonial laws, ignorance of the legal procedure,

lack of money, real estate taxation, and other consequences of

land tilting, most Moros did not secure land titles. Most Moros,

therefore, lost their communal lands in this way.

4. Act No. 718 (1903)

Enacted on April 4, 1903 by the Philippine Commission, Act No.

718 declared illegal, null and void, all grants, deeds, patents, leases

or other instruments of conveyance made by Moro sultans or

datus or by chief of non-Christian tribes covering lands situated

in the Philippine Archipelago or any rights of property that they

may have made without the consent of the concerned Spanish or

American o3 cials. Section 1 of this Act stipulated that:

All grants, deeds, patents, leases, or other instruments

of conveyance purporting to convey from Moro sultans

or dattos, or from chiefs of non-Christian tribes,

lands situated in the Philippine Archipelago or rights

of property, privileges, or easements appertaining

to or growing out of land therein, made without the

authority of the Spanish Government while the

Philippine Archipelago was under the sovereignty

of Spain, or without the consent of the United States

Government or of the Insular Government since the

sovereignty of the Archipelago of the Philippines was

transferred by the Treaty of Paris from Spain to the

United States, and not based on any lawful patent

or grant of the Government of Spain or the United

States or of the Insular Government, whether such

grants, deeds, patents, leases, or other instruments of

conveyance were made before the passage of this Act

or shall be made after its passage, being made without

any lawful authority or ownership, are hereby

declared to be illegal, void, and of no e5 ect.

The provisions of this Act were considered to be an open,

adverse, specifi c, defi nite and obvious legalized land depriva-

tion of the native inhabitants’ property rights over their lands.

It operated to disregard any property rights of the Moro and

“non-Christian tribes” whose title to their lands were acquired

in their own ways. This also assailed the authority of indigenous

political structures and deprived the Moros of their land owner-

ship and use rights that are based on the indigenous way of pass-

ing lands from one generation to another.



5. Public Land Acts and the Torrens System

Act No. 926 was the fi rst Public Land Act, passed on October 7,

1903, in pursuit of the provisions of the Philippine Bill of 1902. It

provided, among other stipulations, that all lands not registered

under Act No. 496 were deemed public lands and therefore may

be applied with homestead. The law governed the disposition of

all lands of the public domain. It set forth the rules and regula-

tions for homestead, sale, and lease of portions of the public

domain; prescribed the terms and conditions to enable persons

to perfect their titles to public lands; provided for the issuance

of patents to qualifi ed native settlers on public lands, establish-

ment of town sites and sale of lots within the sites; and defi ned

procedures for completion of imperfect titles and for the cancel-

lation or confi rmation of Spanish concessions and grants in the

Philippine islands.

Public Land Act No. 926 allowed individuals to acquire

homesteads not exceeding 16 hectares each, and corporations

1,024 hectares each of, unoccupied, unreserved, unappropriated

agricultural public lands” as stated in Section 1. Nothing was

said about the unique customs of the indigenous communities

(Jubair, 1999, p. 95).

Act No. 2874 or the second Public Land Act passed by the

Senate and the House of Representatives on 29 November 1919

provided that the 16 hectares allowed earlier to individuals was

increased to 24 hectares. Section 12 provides:

Section 12. Any citizen of the Philippine Islands or

of the United States, over the age of eighteen years,

or the head of a family, who does not own more than

twenty-four hectares of land in said Islands or has

not had the benefi t of any gratuitous allotment of

more than twenty-four hectares of land since the

occupation of the Philippine Islands by the United

States, may enter a homestead or not exceeding

twenty-four hectares of agricultural land of the

public domain.

But the Moros or non-Christian Tribes were only allowed to

own up to a maximum of four hectares. Section 22 states:

Section 22. Any non-Christian native desiring to live

upon or occupy land on any of the reservations set

aside for the so-called “non-Christian tribes” without

applying for a homestead, may request a permit of

occupation for any tract of land of the public domain

open to homestead entry under this Act, the area of

which shall not exceed ten hectares. It shall be an

essential condition that the applicant for the permit

cultivate and improve the land, and if such cultivation

has not been begun within six months from and after

the date on which the permit was granted, the permit

shall ipso facto be canceled. The permit shall be for

a term of fi ve years. If the expiration of this term or

at any time therefore, the holder of the permit shall

apply for a homestead under the provisions of this

chapter, including the portion for which a permit was

granted to him, he shall have the priority, otherwise

the land shall be again open to disposition at the

expiration of the fi ve years.



The third Public Land Act or Commonwealth Act No. 141, as

amended, was issued on November 7, 1936. Rodil noted that the

law “withdrew the privilege earlier granted to the settlers of own-

ing more than one homestead at twenty-four hectares each and

averted to only one not exceeding sixteen hectares. But the non-

Christians who were earlier allowed a maximum of ten hectares

were now permitted only four hectares” (Rodil, 2003, p. 107).

The Public Land Acts and the Torrens System further bol-

stered the presumption of State ownership over all lands in the

country and that any other land claim or right will have to ema-

nate from it. Hence, ancestral domains occupied since time im-

memorial by indigenous peoples belong to the State, unless the

occupants apply for recognition of their rights through a grant.

This gives conditional recognition of ancestral land claims that

is based on legislative grace, and not on the principle of original

vested rights.

As a consequence of the titling requirement to prove

individual ownership, the Moros, like the indigenous peoples

in other parts of the country, assert that this system of titling

contravened their traditional modes of land ownership and use.

Aside from outright defi ance to colonial laws, ignorance of the

legal procedure, lack of money, real estate taxation, and other

consequences of land tilting, most Moros did not secure land

titles, and therefore lost their communal lands in this way.

6. Act No. 787 (1903) – Creation of the Moro Province

The Philippine Commission issued this Act to create the “Moro

Province”, which was organized into fi ve districts, namely, Cota-

bato, Davao, Lanao, Sulu, and Zamboanga (as the capital).

The Moro Province was clothed with executive power, a

legislative council, judicial and revenue systems, which are all

separate and distinct from the rest of the administration of the

Indios/Filipinos of Luzon and Visayas. The Act subdivided the

Sultanates of Sulu and Magindanaw, and the pat-a-pangampung

u Ranao into the districts of Sulu, Cotabato, Davao, Lanao and

Zamboanga. Zamboanga City was designated as the capital of

the Moro Province.

Major General Wood, Military Commander of Mindanao and

Sulu, was appointed as its fi rst Governor. American Generals

succeeded in heading the Moro Province from 1903-1913. It was

during this period that Filipino Indios slowly replaced American

o2 cials in Moro lands.

The creation of the Moro Province allowed the American

government to control the Moro lands, which was a violation of

the Kiram-Bates Treaty (later declared null and void in 1904).

The United States wanted to prepare the integration and

assimilation of the Moros into the body politic. Custom regula-

tions, tax levy, land survey, mapping, and exploration of natural

resources were enforced.

7. Act No. 253 (1903) – Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes

This Act created the Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes (BNCT)

which was tasked to “conduct systematic investigations with

reference to the non-Christian tribes of the Philippine Islands,

in order to ascertain the name of each tribe, the limits of the ter-

ritory which it occupies, the approximate number of individuals



which compose it, their social organizations and their languages,

beliefs, manners, and customs, with special view to determining

the most practicable means for bringing about their advance-

ment in civilization and material prosperity”. The Bureau was

also mandated to conduct investigation on the operation of all

laws with reference to non-Christian tribes.

The Act regarded the case of the Moro and other non-

Christianized people di% erently from the rest of the Philippine

islands. Most Moros believe that this has relegated the

Bangsamoro nation into a mere sector to be governed by a

bureaucratic branch. It further classifi ed the Bangsamoro as

belonging to non-Christian tribes and diminished the status

of the sovereign Bangsamoro people into a mere tribe.

8. Act No. 1148 (1904) - Forest Act of 1904

This Act aimed to regulate the use of the public forests and

forest reserves in the Philippines. It contained provisions that

restrict the utilization and exploitation of forest resources to

those with licenses issued by the government. No license was

however required for residents “within or adjacent to a govern-

ment authorized forest concession” to cut or remove timber,

fi rewood, other forest products or earth for domestic purposes.

9. Mining Act of 1905

The Mining Act of 1905 declared all public lands open to min-

ing exploration, occupation and purchase even by the Ameri-

cans (Jubair, 1999). It allowed ownership by Filipinos and

foreign citizens.

The law paved the way for American corporations to own large

areas of public land in the country, including in Mindanao and

those held as ancestral lands by indigenous peoples. As a conse-

quence, many indigenous peoples were e% ectively evicted from

their ancestral lands and deprived of their sources of livelihood.

10. Act No. 2259 (Cadastral Act of 1913)

This law, passed by the Philippine Commission on February

11, 1913 as the Cadastral Act of 1913 (Peña, 1994), provided a

vehicle to bring more lands under the operation of the Torrens

system. It introduced the cadastral system, an o% spring of the

system of registration under the Land Registration Act of 1902,

which facilitated the acquisition of new landholdings. It was

also a response to the slow, protracted, and expensive registra-

tion proceedings under the Land Registration Act of 1902, and

the apparent lack of initiative on the part of the landowners to

register their properties.

To hasten and accelerate the registration of lands, the Philip-

pine Legislature enacted this law to carry out a compulsory sur-

vey of all lands, with survey costs shouldered by the government.

It was also conceived to minimize possible land confl icts. With

government initiative, titles for all the land within a stated area

were adjudicated as to whether the people living in such areas

desire to have titles issued in their names.

The law was criticized for utilizing complicated bureaucratic

processes that only enabled foreign investors and the local rul-

ing elites to seize enormous properties by submitting fraudulent

land surveys.



11. Resettlement Programs and Agricultural Colonies

Acts:

Act Nos. 2254 (1913) and 2280 (1913) – Agricultural Colonies.

These Acts created agricultural colonies and encouraged Fili-

pino migrants from the North to settle in the so-called public

lands located in Mindanao and Sulu. These Acts created agricul-

tural colonies and encouraged Filipino migrants from the North

to settle in the so-called public lands located in Mindanao and

Sulu. The laws purportedly aimed to equalize population distri-

bution in the country through these fi rst government-sponsored

programs on migration and resettlement into the South. Act No.

2254 specifi cally awarded the Filipino settlers 16-hectare lot

areas, while Moros were allowed to own only eight hectares.

These pieces of legislation resulted to further occupation of

lands of the Bangsamoro, this time by migrants from Luzon and

the Visayas. Many of these lands included ancestral lands and

rich agricultural lands of Mindanao.

As stated in the reports of the Philippine Commission, the

objectives of the program were the following: 1) To increase food

production.; 2) To equalize the distribution of population in the

Philippines; 3) To bring under cultivation extensive wild public

lands; 4) To a3 ord an opportunity for the colonists to become

land proprietors.

The fi ve sites selected were Pilit, Silik, Ginatilan, Peidu

Pulangi and Pagalungan, all in Cotabato Valley, and Glan at the

present South Cotabato.

Jubair dubbed the law as “a glaring instance of injustice.”

While this law awarded each Filipino settler with a 16 hectare

lot, the Moro was permitted to own only eight hectares, despite

his prior birthright to the place. He believes that this was a con-

sequence of the previous laws that already deprived him of his

ancestral land holdings (Jubair, 1999).

The creation of the said colonies was e3 ected with the aim of

the colonial policy of ensuring the ‘the amalgamation or blend-

ing “ (Philippine Commission Report) of the Christian settlers

and Maguindanaon natives.

In 1914, Act 2280 was passed creating the Momungan Agri-

cultural Colony in Lanao in what is now Baloi-Lanao del Note.

Its purpose was to give relief to American soldiers and em-

ployees who married Filipinos and who did not wish or could

not return to the United States. The Colony also hoped to unite

Muslims and Christians

12. Act No. 2309 (1914) - Department of Mindanao and

Sulu

This Act changed the name of the “Moro Province” into the

“Department of Mindanao and Sulu”, an agency of the Ameri-

can colonial administration in the country which was tasked

to administer all Muslim-dominated areas. The provinces then

included Agusan, Bukidnon, and Surigao, but excluded Lanao.

The Department was headed by Governor Frank W. Carpen-

ter from the time of its creation up to its eventual abolition in

1920, after the responsibility for the administration of Moro

lands was transferred to the Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes.



13. Jones Law or the Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916

Entitled as An Act to Declare the Purpose of the People of the

United States as to the Future Political Status of the People of the

Philippine Islands, and to Provide a More Autonomous Govern-

ment for those Islands, the law replaced the Philippine Organic

of 1902 (Philippine Bill of 1902) that served as the de facto initial

constitution of the Philippines after the country was ceded by

Spain to the United States by virtue of the Treaty of Paris.

By virtue of the Jones Law, legislative power over the Moro

Province was given to the Philippine Legislature.

14. Act No. 2711 (Revised Administrative Code of 1917 -

Forest Law provisions)

The provisions of this law reiterated the basic forest policy of

the government, which states that: “The public forests of the

Philippines shall be held and administered for the protection of

the public interest, the utility and safety of the forest, and the

perpetuation thereof in productive condition by wise use.”

Under State control, this law established communal forests

and pastures for the use of communities. The Director of Forest-

ry was in charge of classifying communal forests based on cer-

tain guidelines. Over 300,000 hectares were eventually set aside

by the Director of Forestry as communal. As of 1983, however,

most communal forests were in disuse. Many are within forest

concessions or areas leased to agri-business concessionaires.

15. Act No. 2878 (1920) – Abolishing the Department of

Mindanao and Sulu and Transferring its Responsibilities

to the Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes

This law abolished the Department of Mindanao and Sulu and

transferred its responsibilities to the Bureau of Non-Christian

Tribes under the Department of Interior. The law was passed

to establish mutual understanding and fusion of Moros and

Lumads to form with the majority of the Filipinos. The law was

cited as furthering dissatisfaction among the Moros as power

shifted to the Christianized Filipinos.

16. Act No. 4197 - Quirino-Recto Colonization Act of 1935

Issued on February 12, 1935, the law declared Mindanao as a

special target for building more settler colonies. It invited mas-

sive arrival of settlers from Luzon and Visayas with the added

support from the government. This encouraged the infl ux of

more settlers into Mindanao, which resulted to further colo-

nization by Filipino settlers of the territories occupied by the

Moros and indigenous peoples.

It is noted that on 18 March 1935, Hadji Abdulmajid Bong-

abong led 120 Maranao chieftains in passing a manifesto (known

as the Dansalan Declaration) to the US President opposing the

annexation of Mindanao to Luzon and Visayas. They expressed

their appeal not to be included to the Philippine Independent

nation, their predicament on the state of their traditional land-

holdings as well as their aspirations to acquire them by legal

process and respect for their practices, laws and religion, as

stated below:



“Should the American people grant the Philippine

Independence, the islands of Mindanao and Sulu

should not be included in such independence. Our

public land must not be given to other people other

than the Moros. We should be given time to acquire

them, because most of us have no lands. Our people

do not yet realize the value of acquiring those lands by

the process of law. Where shall we obtain the support

of our family if our lands are taken from us? It will

be safe to us that a law should be created restricting

(the acquisition) of our land by other people. This

will avoid future trouble.

Our practices, laws and decisions of our Moro leaders should

be respected…Our religion should not be curtailed in any way.

All our practices which are incidental to our religion of Islam

should be respected because these things are what a Muslim de-

sires to live for…Our religion is no more, our lives are no more”

(Silva, 1979, pp. 27-28).

Commonwealth Period and the Moros (1935-1946)

Until the end of the Spanish colonial period at the turn of the

20th century, 75% of the population of Mindanao still consisted

of indigenous Moros, a testament to the Moro people’s suc-

cessful struggle to defend their ancestral lands. However, the

Commonwealth Period was characterized by increasing dispos-

session of Moros such that today, less than 17% of Mindanao

territory is currently occupied by the Moro people, much of it

desolate and barren lands situated in far-fl ung highlands. The

following laws issued during the Commonwealth Period may

provide the background to such dispossession:

1. Commonwealth Act No. 141 (1936) – Public Land Act of

1936

This law amends and compiles all the laws relative to lands of

the public domain. Essentially containing the same provisions

as its predecessor public land acts, this law continues to be the

governing law on public lands to this date. Philippine Common-

wealth President Manuel L. Quezon signed this Public Land Act

known as Commonwealth Act No. 141 into law on November 7,

1936, taking e8 ect on December 1, 1936. This law in Section 84

declared as public land all the lands of the Moros:

That all grants, deeds, patents, and other instruments

of conveyances of land or purporting to convey or

transfer rights of property, privileges or easements

appertaining to or growing out of lands granted

by sultans, datus, or other chiefs of the so-called

non-Christian tribes, without the authority of the

Spanish Government while the Philippines were

under the sovereignty of Spain, or without the

consent of the United States Government or of the

Philippine Government since the sovereignty over

the Archipelago was transferred from Spain to the

United States, and all deeds and other documents

executed or issued or based upon deeds, patents and

documents mentioned are hereby declared to be

illegal, void and of no e8 ect.



Among the guidelines that the law provides for relate to the

following:

• Classifi cation, delimitation, and survey of lands of the

public domain into alienable and disposable, timber, and

mineral lands;

• Forms of concession of agricultural lands: (a) sale; (b)

lease; (c) homestead; (d) confi rmation of imperfect or

incomplete titles.

Section 48, Article VII on Judicial Confi rmation of Imper-

fect Titles allows certain citizens who are “occupying lands of

the public domain or claiming to own such lands or an interest

therein, but whose title have not been perfected” to apply in

court for confi rmation of their claims and the issuance of a cer-

tifi cate of title under the Land Registration Act (Torrens Title).

Eligible citizens include:

(a) Those who prior to the transfer of sovereignty from

Spain to the United States have applied for the purchase,

composition or other form of grant of lands of the public

domain under the laws and royal decrees when in force

and have instituted and prosecuted the proceedings in

connection therewith, but have with or without default

upon their part, or for any other cause, not received title

therefor, if such applicants or grantees and their heirs

have occupied and cultivated said lands continuously

since the fi ling of their applications.

(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors

in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive,

and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural

lands of the public domain, under a bona fi de claim of

acquisition or ownership, for at least thirty (30) years

immediately preceding the fi ling of the application for

confi rmation of title except when prevented by war or

force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to

have performed all the conditions essential to a Govern-

ment grant and shall be entitled to a certifi cate of title

under the provisions of this chapter.

Section 12 of this law provides:

SECTION 12. Any citizen of the Philippines over

the age of eighteen years, or the head of a family,

who does not own more than twenty-four hectares

of land in the Philippines or has not had the benefi t

of any gratuitous allotment of more than twenty-

four hectares of land since the occupation of the

Philippines by the United States, may enter a

homestead of not exceeding twenty-four hectares of

agricultural land of the public domain.

Section 12 of this law states that non-Christian tribes, to

include the Moros, can own only up to four hectares:

SECTION 21. Any non-Christian Filipino who has

not applied for a homestead, desiring to live upon or

occupy land on any of the reservations set aside for the

so-called “non-Christian tribes” may request a permit

of occupation for any tract of land of the public domain

reserved for said non-Christian tribes under this Act,

the area of which shall not exceed four hectares. It



shall be an essential condition that the applicant for

the permit cultivate and improve the land, and if such

cultivation has not been begun within six months from

and after the date on which the permit was received,

the permit shall be cancelled. The permit shall be for a

term of one year. If at the expiration of this term or at

any time prior thereto, the holder of the permit shall

apply for a homestead under the provisions of this

chapter, including the portion for which a permit was

granted to him, he shall have the priority, otherwise,

the land shall be again open to disposition at the

expiration of the permit.

This law has perpetuated the same discrimination of the

earlier Public Land Acts against the Moros and other indigenous

peoples. There were discrepancies in terms of allowable num-

ber of hectares that may be claimed between individuals and

corporations, and with respect to non-Christian tribes. The law,

for instance, reduced allowable Moro land ownership from 10 to

four hectares, while the settlers retained 24 hectares. Corpora-

tions not owned by Moros were also permitted ownership of up

to 1,024 hectares.

The law further facilitated the establishment of vast planta-

tions and industrial companies that permitted Christian settlers

and migrant workers from Luzon and Visayas to work in Min-

danao as laborers. Such infl ux of migrants to Mindanao was so

rapid that it eventually made the Moros and other indigenous

communities a minority in the process. The cases of displace-

ment of the Moros from their lands led to varied land-related

confl icts and violent clashes.

2. Act No. 441 (1939) – National Land Settlement

Administration

This Act created the National Land Settlement Administration,

which was mandated to facilitate the acquisition, settlement,

and cultivation of lands acquired from government or from

private parties. It a) orded opportunity to those who have com-

pleted military training to own farms and encouraged migration

to sparsely populated regions like Mindanao. It further disposed

of reserved, held, surveyed or subdivided lands to persons quali-

fi ed under the Constitution and the Public Land Act.

Rodil (2003, p. 111) elaborated that:

The National Land Settlement Administration

(NLSA) created by Commonwealth Act No. 441 in

1939 introduced new dimensions into resettlement.

Aside from the usual objectives, there was the item

providing military trainees an opportunity to own

farms upon completion of their military training.

The Japanese menace was strongly felt in the

Philippines at this time and this particular o) er was

an attempt by the government to strengthen national

security. Under the NLSA, three major resettlements

in Cotabato, namely, Koronadal Valley made up of

Lagao, Tupi. Marbel and Polomolok and Ala (now

spelled Allah) Valley consisting of Banga, Norallah

and Surallah. By the time the NLSA was abolished in

1950, a total of 8,300 families had been resettled.



Philippine Republic (1946 - Present)

After a short period of Japanese rule, in which the majority of

the Moros also fought against the new invaders, the US returned

and o" cially annexed Mindanao and Sulu to the territory of the

Philippines with the grant of independence on July 4, 1946. The

Moro problem was handed over to the new Filipino rulers. After

the establishment of the Philippine Independence, the prob-

lems of land tenure remained. These became worst in certain

areas, including in Mindanao.

1. Executive Order No. 355 (1950) – Land Settlement

Development Corporation

This executive order, issued by President Elpidio Quirino,

replaced the National Land Settlement with the Land Settle-

ment Development Corporation (LASEDECO). It continued the

government’s resettlement program.

It was able to open Tacurong, Isulan, Bagumbayan, part of

Buluan, Sultan sa Barongis and Ampatuan, all in Cotabato and

had been able to resettle 1,500 families (Silva, 1979).

2. Economic Development Corporation (EDCOR)

In 1951, when Ramon Magsaysay was the Secretary of National

Defense, he initiated the establishment of the Economic Devel-

opment Corporation (EDCOR) Farms for captured and surren-

dered Huks. Administered by the Armed Forces, EDCOR opened

six resettlement areas: Peredo Edcor In Isabela, Catanauan Ed-

cor in Quezon, Arevalo Edcor in Sapad, Lanao del Norte, Genio

Edcor in Alamada, North Cotabato, Gallego Edcor and Barira Ed-

cor both in Buldon, Maguindanao. In 1976, Paredo, Catanauan,

Arevalo and Gallego were turned over to the Land Authority and

in 1972, Genio and Barira to DAR (Silva, 1979).

Ironically, however, many of those resettled in Mindanao,

especially in Cotabato and Lanao, were not former Huks. In fact,

many former soldiers were deliberately mixed with the former

rebels in order to function as stabilizers (Paderanga, 1955).

3. Republic Act No. 1160 (1954) – National Resettlement

and Rehabilitation Administration

This law abolished the LASEDECO and established the National

Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA)

to resettle dissidents and landless farmers. It was particularly

aimed at rebel returnees by providing home lots and farmlands

in Palawan and Mindanao.

4. Republic Act No. 1199 - Agricultural Tenancy Act of

1954

This law governed the relationship between landowners and

tenant farmers by organizing share-tenancy and leasehold sys-

tem. The law provided the security of tenure of tenants. It also

created the Court of Agrarian Relations.

5. Republic Act No. 1400 - Land Reform Act of 1955

This law created the Land Tenure Administration (LTA) which

was responsible for the acquisition and distribution of large

tenanted rice and corn lands over 200 hectares for individuals

and 600 hectares for corporations.



6. Republic Act No. 1888 (1957) – Commission on National

Integration

This law aimed “to e" ectuate in a more rapid and complete man-

ner 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” through

the creation of the Commission on National Integration (CNI).

Powers of the CNI include:

• Engagement of the national cultural minorities in indus-

trial and agricultural enterprises, processing plants and

cottage industries

• Construction of irrigation systems and dams, power

structures, electric transmission and distribution sys-

tems to furnish light, heat, and power to the inhabitants

not receiving such services

• Settlement of all landless members of national cultural

minorities by procuring homesteads for them or by reset-

tling them in government resettlement projects

• Establishment of more public schools in areas where na-

tional cultural minorities inhabit and to also encourage

them to attend such schools

• Establishment of civic centers, fairs, and other commu-

nication programs to promote community life among

national cultural communities

• Training of national cultural communities in di" erent

fi elds of education and assistance in securing employ-

ment in private establishments and the civil service; and

• Promotion of local and international scholarships for

national cultural minorities

7. Republic Act No. 3844 (1963) – Agricultural Land

Reform Code

This law ordained the agricultural land reform code to institute

land reform in the country. It abolished share tenancy, institu-

tionalized leasehold, set retention limit at 75 hectares, invested

rights of pre-emption and redemption for tenant farmers, pro-

vided for administrative machinery for its implementation, and

institutionalized a judicial system of agrarian cases. It created

the Land Authority which took over the functions of NARRA.

For the fi rst time, resettlement became a part of the land

reform program (Rodil, 2003).

8. Republic Act No. 3872 (June 18, 1964) –An Act to

Amend Sections Forty-Four, Forty-Eight and One Hundred

Twenty of Commonwealth Act Number One Hundred Forty

One, as Amended, Otherwise known as the “Public Land

Act”, and For Other Purposes.

The law states that conveyances of land made by illiterate ethnic

minorities are null and void, unless approved by the appropriate

government o2 cial. On the other hand, conveyances made by

literates must be written in an intelligible language to be valid.

(Section 120)

A new paragraph is hereby added to Section 44 of Common-

wealth Act No. 141, to read as follows:

Sec. 44. Any natural-born citizen of the Philippines

who is not the owner of more than twenty-four

hectares and who since July fourth, nineteen hundred

and twenty-six or prior thereto, has continuously



occupied and cultivated, either by himself or through

his predecessors-in-interest, a tract or tracts of

agricultural public lands subject to disposition, or

who shall have paid the real estate tax thereon while

the same has not been occupied by any person shall be

entitled, under the provisions of this chapter, to have

a free patent issued to him for such tract or tracts of

such land not to exceed twenty-four hectares.

A member of the national cultural minorities who has con-

tinuously occupied and cultivated, either by himself or through

his predecessors-in-interest, a tract or tracts of land, whether

disposable or not since July 4, 1955, shall be entitled to the right

granted in the preceding paragraph of this section: Provided,

That at the time he fi les his free patent application he is not the

owner of any real estate secured or disposable under this provi-

sion of the Public Land Law. (Section 1, RA 3872).

Note that a Moro may apply for a Free Patent only once

over his landholdings upon the e0 ectivity of this act while any

natural born citizen may be entitled to issuance of more than

one free patents, provided that the land applied is not to exceed

twenty-four hectares. A Member of the national cultural mi-

norities may apply for a free patent over a tract or tracts of land,

whether disposable or not while any natural born citizen may

only apply for free patents over alienable and disposable agricul-

tural lands.

A new sub-section (c) is hereby added to Section 48

of the same CA 141 to read as follows:

“Sec. 48. The following-described citizens of the

Philippines, occupying lands of the public domain

or claiming to own any such lands or an interest

therein, but whose titles have not been perfected

or completed, may apply to the Court of First

Instance of the province where the land is located

for confi rmation of their claims and the issuance

of a certifi cate of title therefor, under the Land

Registration Act, to wit:

(a) Those who prior to the transfer of sovereignty

from Spain to the United States have applied for

the purchase, composition or other form of grant

of lands if the public domain under the laws and

royal decrees then in force and have instituted

and prosecuted the proceedings in connection

therewith, but have, with or without default upon

their part, or for any other cause, not received title

therefor, if such applicants or grantees and their

heirs have occupied and cultivated said lands

continuously since the fi ling of their applications.

(b) Those who by themselves or through their prede-

cessors-in-interest have been, in continuous, ex-

clusive, and notorious possession and occupation

of agricultural lands of the public domain, under

a bona fi de claim of acquisition or ownership, for

at least thirty years immediately preceding the

fi ling of the application for confi rmation of title,

except when prevented by war of force majeure.

Those shall be conclusively presumed to have

performed all the conditions essential to a gov-



ernment grant and shall be entitled to a certifi -

cate of title under the provisions of this chapter.

(c) Members of the national cultural minorities who

by themselves or through their predecessors-in-

interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive

and notorious possession and occupation of lands

of the public domain suitable to agriculture,

whether disposable or not, under a bona fi de

claim of ownership for at least 30 years shall be

entitled to the rights granted in sub-section (b)

hereof”. (Section 2, RA 3872)

A Moro or a member of national cultural communities is

conclusively presumed eligible to be issued a grant and conse-

quent certifi cate of land title from the government. It required

that they or their predecessors-in-interest must have been in

open possession and occupation of lands of the public domain

suitable to agriculture, regardless of whether the lands are alien-

able and disposable, under a bona fi de claim of ownership for at

least 30 years.

This amendatory law added a new subsection to Section 48 of

CA 141 by providing members of national cultural communities

with conclusive presumption of eligibility to be issued a grant

and consequent certifi cate of land title from the government. It

required that they or their predecessors-in-interest must have

been in open possession and occupation of lands of the public

domain suitable to agriculture, regardless of whether the lands

are alienable and disposable, under a bona fi de claim of owner-

ship for at least 30 years.

In addition, the law states that conveyances of land made by

illiterate ethnic minorities are null and void, unless approved

by the appropriate government o/ cial. On the other hand,

conveyances made by literates must be written in an intelligible

language to be valid.

9. Republic Act No. 6389 (September 10, 1971) – Code of

Agrarian Reform of the Philippines

This law created the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR),

which took over the settlement projects of the government. It

is reported that the DAR through its Bureau of Resettlement

administered 37 settlements all over the country, 18 of them

in Mindanao in the ten provinces of Tawi-Tawi, Zamboanga

del Norte, Bukidnon, Agusan del Sur, Lanao Del Norte, Davao

del Norte, Lanao del Sur, North Cotabato, Maguindanao, and

Sultan Kudarat.

As of the end of 1975, DAR administers 18 settlements in

Mindanao all over Mindanao covering 454,078 hectares of land

inhabited by 26,493 settlers/families (Castaneda cited in Silva,

1979). A product of the Land Reform Code, Land Authority

took over from NARRA in 1963. For the fi rst time, resettlement

became a part of the land reform program. The creation of the

Department of Agrarian reform in 1971 also brought about the

existence of the Bureau of Resettlement.

Moreover, the Economic Development Corps (EDCOR), a

special program of the government to counter the upsurge of the

Huk rebellion, a brainchild of Ramon Magsaysay, then Secretary

of National Defense under President Elpidio Quirino- must also

be mentioned. This program was responsible for opening reset-



tlement areas for surrendered or captured Huks (insurgents) in

such areas as Isabela and Quezon in Luzon, and Lanao del Norte,

North Cotabato and Maguindanao and Maranao ancestral ter-

ritories. The resettlement e& orts of the government continued

to dispossess the Moros of their landholdings.

Martial Law Period (1972- 1981)

10. Presidential Decree No. 410 (March 11, 1974) –

Ancestral Land Decree

This law declared ancestral lands occupied and cultivated by

national cultural communities as alienable and disposable. On

reading of the decree, however, the following caveats are noted:

• On the scope of the declaration. All unappropriated

agricultural lands forming part of the public domain at

the date of the approval of the Decree which are occu-

pied and cultivated by members of the national cultural

communities for at least 10 years before the e& ectivity

of the law, particularly in certain enumerated provinces,

were declared as ancestral lands of the occupant national

cultural communities and were further declared as alien-

able and disposable. This may be construed that if an

agricultural land occupied by a national cultural minority

is already “appropriated” at the time of the law, then this

is no longer within the scope of the declaration

• On excluded public domain. The law explicitly states that

lands of the public domain that have been (a) reserved

for settlement purposes under the administration of

the DAR and (b) other areas reserved for other public or

quasi-public shall not be subject to disposition in accor-

dance with the provisions of this law

• In addition, the Ministry of Natural Resources Gen-

eral Administrative Order No. 1 of 1974 excludes forest

reserves, watersheds, national parks, wildlife sanctuaries,

national historic sites and other areas essential to scenic,

recreation, fi sh or wildlife purposes

• On permission to put Agro-industrial projects in an-

cestral lands. The law further gives the government the

option to establish agro-industrial projects in these areas

for the purpose of creating conditions for employment

• On issuance and limits of Land Occupancy Certifi cates.

These were supposed to be issued to all members of the

national cultural communities presently occupying and

cultivating lands of the public domain within ancestral

lands (as defi ned in the Decree). However, it required

that the recipient of the lands allocated under this law

should fi rst be a member of a farmer cooperative within

his community before the Certifi cate can be issued. Once

issued, its holders are prohibited from making any sale

or transfer of such land within 10 years after acquisition

except in favor of the cooperative of which the owner is

a member or in favor of the government. No mortgage or

other encumbrances on such lands, rights, or interests

are also allowed unless approved by the Secretary of Agri-

culture and Natural Resources

It is noted that the implementing rules and regulations

promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture and

Natural Resources were so cumbersome, particularly for

indigenous cultural communities who were unfamiliar

with the law.



• Period to perfect title. The law gave the occupants of

ancestral lands a period of 10 years from the date of

approval of the law within which to fi le applications to

perfect their title. Otherwise, they are deemed to have

lost their preferential rights to the land and that the land

shall be declared open for allocation to other deserving

applicants. Occupants had until March 11, 1984 to perfect

their claims.

This provision is very reminiscent of the Maura Law, which

sought to extinguish vested ancestral land rights for failure

to register within the prescribed period. Legal scholar Owen

Lynch, Jr. elucidated that even eight years after its promulga-

tion, no Tribal Filipino has acquired a title pursuant to this

Ancestral Land Decree.

11. Presidential Decree (PD) No. 690 (1975) – Southern

Philippines Development Authority

The law abolished the Commission on National Integration,

Mindanao Development Authority, the Presidential Task Force

for the Reconstruction and Development of Mindanao, and the

Special Program of Assistance for the Rehabilitation of Evacu-

ees, and created the Southern Philippines Development Admin-

istration (SPDA).

The SPDA was envisioned as a unifi ed responsive agency that

will foster and accelerate the balanced growth of Mindanao,

Sulu archipelago and Palawan within the context of national

plans and policies. Its primary functions include the promotion

of the development of the region by initiating development and/

or business projects in social and/pr economic fi elds in agricul-

ture, power, infrastructure, education, energy, public utilities,

housing, land development, manufacturing, exploration and/or

utilization of natural resources; and generation and encourage-

ment of mass active participation and cooperation of members

of national cultural communities in its activities.

12. Presidential Decree No. 705 (1975) – Revised Forestry

Code

This revised an earlier Forestry Reform Code (P.D. 389) by pro-

viding for the classifi cation, management, and utilization of the

lands of the public domain and re-assessing multiple uses of for-

est lands and resources. The decree considered as forest lands

(a) those areas of the public domain 18% in slope and over; and

(b) certain areas which may be below 18% in slope but needed

for forest purposes.

In both cases, these areas, being forest lands, could not be

classifi ed as alienable and disposable. Should there be any such

lands that have already been declared as alienable and dispos-

able, these will be reverted to the classifi cation of forest lands

and will form part of forest reserves, unless covered by existing

titles, approved public land application, or actually occupied

openly, continuously, adversely, and publicly for a period of 30

years where the occupants is qualifi ed for free patent under CA

141. The law also states that when public interest requires, steps

shall be taken to expropriate, cancel defective titles, reject pub-

lic land application, and eject occupants of such forest lands.

The law defi nes private right of national minority as referring

to rights or possession already existing, such as places of abode



and worship, burial grounds, and old clearings, but excluding

productive forest, commercial forests, and established planta-

tions of forest trees and trees of economic values. It does not

however contain any provision for the recognition of private

ancestral land rights.

13. Presidential Decree No. 1073 (1977) – Extending

the period for application for Free Patents and Judicial

Confi rmation of Imperfect and Incomplete Titles to

Alienable and Disposable Lands

This law extended the period for fi ling applications for admin-

istrative legalization (free patent) and judicial confi rmation

of imperfect and incomplete titles to alienable and disposable

lands of the public domain under CA 141, as amended, for 11

years commencing on January 1, 1977, or until 1988.

As a consequence, however, this law prevented the judiciary

from recognizing ownership to ancestral lands which has not yet

been declared or certifi ed as “alienable and disposable” by the

Bureau of Forest Development.

14. Presidential Decree No. 1414- Presidential Assistant

on National Minorities or PANAMIN (June 9, 1978)

The law defi nes the powers and duties of the O. ce of the Presi-

dential Assistant on National Minorities (PANAMIN), in view of

the State’s policy to integrate into the mainstream of Philippine

society certain ethnic groups who seek full integration into the

larger community.

The term “national minorities” is defi ned under this decree

as “non-Muslim hill tribes referred to under Presidential Decree

No. 719 and other non-Muslim national minorities whether

referred to as National Cultural Minorities or Cultural Commu-

nities under other laws”.

15. Presidential Decree No. 1529 – Property Registration

Decree (June 11, 1978)

This decree amended and codifi ed the laws relative to the re-

gistration of property. The following persons were allowed to

fi le in the court an application for registration of title to land:

(a) those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-

interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious

possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of

the public domain under a bona fi de claim of ownership since

June 12, 1945, or earlier; (b) those who have acquired ownership

of private lands by prescription under the provision of existing

laws; (c) those who have acquired ownership of private lands or

abandoned river beds by right of accession or accretion under

the existing laws; and (d) those who have acquired ownership of

land in any other manner provided for by law.

This law provided the settlers in Mindanao a leeway to reg-

ister even those lands that have already been applied, surveyed,

and approved for titling by the Moros, who by reason of the

wars in the 1970s have left their lands and failed to consummate

titling of their lands due to presumed abandonment of claims.

As a consequence, large tracts of lands previously occupied by

Moros were granted to and titled in favor of the migrant settlers.

Steps in Land Registration under the Torrens System:

• Survey of Land – undertaken by the Lands Management

Bureau or a duly licensed private surveyor



• Filling of Application for Registration – fi led with the

Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of the

province or city where the land is located;

• Setting of the Date for Initial Hearing – the Court sets the

initial hearing of the application

• Transmittal of Application – from the Clerk of Court to

the National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Admin-

istration (formerly Land Registration Commission)

• Publication of Notice – this is a notice of the fi lling of appli-

cation and date and place of hearing that is published once

in the O( cial Gazette and once in a newspaper of general

circulation in the Philippines by the Administrator of the

Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration

• Service of Notice – notice is given to contiguous owners,

occupants, and those known to have interest in the prop-

erty by the Sheri*

• Filing of Answer or Opposition – this may be fi led by any

person, whether named in the notice or not

• Hearing – sessions when the Court hears the case;

• Promulgation of Judgment – by the Court

• Issuance of Decree – by the court declaring that the deci-

sion is fi nal and instructing the National Land Titles and

Deeds Registration Administration to issue a decree of

confi rmation and registration

• Entry of Decree of Registration – in the National Land

Titles and Deed Registration Administration

• Sending of Copy of Decree of Registration – to the cor-

responding Register of Deeds

• Transcription of Decree of Registration – in the registra-

tion book

• Issuance of Original Certifi cate of Titles – by the Regis-

trar of Deeds upon payment of prescribed fees. [Peňa,

Land Titles and Deeds, 1988 Rev. pp. 30-31]

16. Executive Order No. 561 (1979) - Commission on the

Settlement of Land Problems

This executive issuance created the Commission on the Settle-

ment of Land Problems under the O( ce of the President, which

was tasked to expeditiously settle land-related confl icts among

settlers, landowners, and members of cultural minorities. The

land problems or disputes contemplated here were those that

are critical and explosive in nature considering, for instance,

the large number of parties that are involved, the presence or

emergence of social tension or unrest, or other similar critical

situations requiring immediate action.

The resolution, order, or decision of the Commission has the

e* ect of a regular administrative decision or order which was

binding upon the parties. It was observed, however, that most

cases settled by the Commission were in favor of the migrants,

either by compromise or by force of circumstances.

Post-Martial Law Period

17. Executive Order No. 122-A– Creating the O, ce of

Muslim A- airs; Executive Order No. 122-B (1987) –

Creating the O, ce for Northern Cultural Communities;

and Executive Order No. 122-C –Creating the O, ce for

Southern Cultural Communities (all dated January 30,

1987)



The O! ce of Muslim A" airs (OMA), O! ce for Northern Cul-

tural Communities (ONCC), and O! ce for Southern Cultural

Communities (OSCC) were created by separate executive is-

suances in line with the Freedom Constitution’s provision on

government reorganization and the perceived need to promote

e! ciency and e" ectiveness in the delivery of public services.

The OMA, in particular, expressed the State’s policy to ensure

the rights and well-being of Muslim Filipinos with due regard to

their beliefs, customs, traditions, and institutions, as well as to

ensure their contribution to national goals and aspirations and

to make them active participants in nation-building. OMA was

granted several functions, three of which are as follows:

• Provide advice and assistance to the O! ce of the Presi-

dent in the formulation, coordination, implementation,

and monitoring of policies, plans, programs, and projects

a" ecting Muslim communities

• Undertake and coordinate development programs and

projects for the advancement of Muslim communities

• Act as primary government agency through which

Muslim Filipinos can seek government assistance and

redress, and serve as medium through which such assis-

tance may be extended to Muslim Filipinos

The ONCC and OSCC basically have the same functions as

the OMA, except only in terms of the members over which they

have mandate. The ONCC and OSCC both contemplate “non-

Muslim hill tribes and ethnolinguistic minority groups”. ONCC

covers all members of such tribal groups in Regions I, II, and III

in the northern part of the Philippines; and OSCC encompasses

those in Regions IV, V, VI, VII, IX, X, XI, and XII in the southern

regions of the country.

However, reports abound on how OMA has merely served as

the government’s justifi cation of integrating the Muslims, but has

never addressed the Muslim’s sentiments on their ancestral lands.

17. Republic Act No. 6657 ((June 10, 1988) –

Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL)

This Act institutes a comprehensive agrarian reform program

(CARP) as a social justice and industrialization measure in

the country. Compared to earlier land reform laws, CARP is

regarded as a comprehensive measure because it covers all

public and private agricultural lands and other lands suitable

for agriculture regardless of tenurial arrangements. The law,

however, contains several provisions on exemptions, retention

limits, non-land transfer options which were highly favorable to

land owners. The law was instrumental in distributing lands to

numerous farmers, but it also deprived other poor peasants of

the same aspiration of owning lands. It has not yet resolved the

problem of landlessness and poverty in the country.

In theory, qualifi ed farmer benefi ciaries under the CARP

include: (a) agricultural lessees and share tenants; (b) regular,

seasonal, and other farm workers; (c) actual tillers or occupants

of public lands; (d) collective or cooperatives of above benefi cia-

ries; and (e) others directly working on the lands.

The Department of Agrarian Reform has various modes of dis-

tributing lands covered by CARP to qualifi ed farmer benefi ciaries:

• Physical distribution of lands. This includes the Opera-

tion Land Transfer (OLT) for tenanted rice and corn

lands originally under an earlier land reform program



• Compulsory acquisition. This is where government

expropriates the land holding regardless of whether the

landowner cooperates with the program or not, and then

is paid via staggered bonds-cash payment spread over ten

years

• Voluntary O% er to Sell (VOS). This scheme encourages

landowner cooperation by giving them incentives when

they voluntarily cooperate under the program (addition-

al 5% in cash portion of the payment with corresponding

decrease of 5% in bonds payment)

• Voluntary Land Transfer (VLT). Also referred to as the

Direct Payment Scheme, this is a “land transfer” trans-

action that is directly made between the landlord and

peasants, and where the government’s role is minimal

and merely facilitative

• Non-land transfer schemes. Examples of this mode

include stock distribution option, production and profi t

sharing, and leasehold operation

The law defi ned ancestral lands of each indigenous cultural

community to include, but not be limited to, lands in the actual,

continuous and open possession and occupation of the com-

munity and its members and provided that the Torrens Systems

shall be respected.

Under this law, the right of these communities to their ances-

tral lands shall be protected to ensure their economic, social and

cultural well-being. In line with the principles of self-determi-

nation and autonomy, the systems of land ownership, land use,

and the modes of settling land disputes of all these communities

must be recognized and respected.

It added that any provision of law to the contrary notwith-

standing, the implementation of this Act maybe suspended with

respect to ancestral lands for the purpose of identifying and de-

lineating such lands: provided, that in the autonomous regions,

the respective legislatures may enact their own laws on ances-

tral domain subject to the provisions of the Constitution and the

principles enunciated in this Act and other national laws.

19.Republic Act No. 6734 (August 1, 1989) – Organic Act

for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao

The purpose of the Organic Act is to establish the Autonomous

Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), to provide its basic struc-

ture of government within the framework of the Constitution,

national sovereignty, and territorial integrity of the Philippines,

and to ensure peace and equality before the law of all people in

the region.

With respect to ancestral domain and ancestral lands of

indigenous cultural communities, the Organic Act mandates

the Regional Government to undertake measures to protect this

subject to the Constitution and national policies.

In the context of the Act, ancestral domain is understood as

“all lands and natural resources in the Autonomous Region that

have been possessed or occupied by indigenous cultural com-

munities since time immemorial, except when prevented by

war, force majeure, or other forms of forcible usurpation”. It

includes “pasture lands, worship areas, burial grounds, forests

and fi elds, mineral resources, except: strategic minerals such as

uranium, coal, petroleum, and other fossil fuels, mineral oils,

and all sources of potential energy; lakes, rivers and lagoons; and



national reserves and marine parks, as well as forest and water-

shed reservations”. Ancestral lands, on the other hand, refer to

“lands in the actual, open, notorious, and uninterrupted posses-

sion and occupation by an indigenous cultural community for at

least thirty (30) years.”

The Organic Act provides for judicial a* rmation of titles to

ancestral lands. It states that “the constructive or traditional

possession of lands and resources by an indigenous cultural

community may also be recognized subject to judicial a* rma-

tion, the petition for which shall be instituted within a period of

ten (10) years from the e, ectivity of this Act. The procedure for

judicial a* rmation of imperfect titles under existing laws shall,

as far as practicable, apply to the judicial a* rmation of titles to

ancestral lands”. Nonetheless, the Act clarifi es that “titles se-

cured under the Torrens system, and rights already vested under

the provisions of existing laws shall be respected”.

The phrase indigenous cultural community was also defi ned

under the Act. It refers to “Filipino citizens residing in the

Autonomous Region who are: (a) tribal peoples whose social,

cultural and economic conditions distinguish them from other

sectors of the national community and whose status is regulated

wholly or partially by their own customs or traditions or by

special laws or regulations; and (b) Bangsamoro people regarded

as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations

that inhabited the country or a distinct geographical area at the

time of conquest or colonization and who, irrespective of their

legal status, retain some or all of their own socioeconomic, cul-

tural and political institutions”.

The Organic Act further provides for the implementation and

enforcement of the customary laws, traditions, and practices of

indigenous cultural communities on land claims and ownership

and settlement of land disputes among the members of such

community. Corporations, companies and other

entities within the ancestral domain of the indigenous cultural

communities whose operations adversely a, ect the ecological

balance shall be required by the Regional Government to take

the necessary preventive measures and safeguards in order to

maintain such a balance.

Other provisions related to ancestral domain are as follows:

• Unless authorized by the Regional Assembly, lands of

the ancestral domain titled to or owned by an indigenous

cultural community shall not be disposed of to non-

members; and

• No portion of the ancestral domain shall be open to

resettlement by non-members of the indigenous cultural

communities

Finally, the Regional Assembly is mandated to enact an

Agrarian Reform Law suitable to the special circumstances pre-

vailing in the Autonomous Region, subject to the Constitution

and national law.

20. Republic Act No. 7586 (1992) – National Integrated

Protected Areas System or NIPAS Act

This law establishes a national integrated protected areas system

(NIPAS) which shall encompass outstanding remarkable areas

and biologically important public lands that are habitats of rare

and endangered species of plants and animals, biogeographic



zones, and related ecosystems, whether terrestrial, wetland or

marine, all of which shall be designated as protected areas.

Under this law, the following categories of protected areas

shall be established: strict nature reserves, natural park, natural

monument, wildlife sanctuary, protected landscapes and sea-

scapes, resource reserve, natural biotic areas, and other catego-

ries that may be established by law.

Since many of the areas targeted under the NIPA system are

also occupied by indigenous communities or are claimed as their

ancestral lands, the law expressly recognizes ancestral lands and

customary rights and interest.

21. Republic Act No. 7942 (1995) – Philippine Mining Act

of 1995

This law reiterated the Regalian Doctrine that all mineral

resources in public and private lands within the Philippine ter-

ritory are owned by the State. As such, the State under this Act

will undertake the exploration, development, utilization, and

processing of all mineral resources.

With respect to ancestral lands, the law states that “no ances-

tral lands shall be opened for mining operations without prior

consent of the indigenous cultural community concerned.” In

the event that an agreement (with prior consent) has been made

with the indigenous cultural community, royalty payments shall

be agreed upon by the parties upon utilization of the minerals.

The royalty shall form part of a trust fund for the socio-econo-

mic well-being of the indigenous cultural community.

Consistent with previous mining laws, the 1995 Mining Act

has also been criticized for easing the eviction of the indigenous

peoples from their lands, facilitating the acquisition of minerals

on these lands by foreign-owned corporations, and paving the

way for the destruction of the environment.

22. Republic Act No. 8371 (October 21, 1997) – Indigenous

People’s Rights Act

This law was passed pursuant to the constitutional policy that

the State shall recognize and promote all the rights of indi-

genous cultural communities/indigenous peoples (ICC/IP)

within the framework of the Constitution.

As provided under Chapter II, Section 3 (a) of the Act, an-

cestral domain refer to all areas generally belonging to ICCs/

IPs comprising lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and natural

resources therein, held under a claim of ownership, occupied or

possessed by ICCs/IPs, by themselves or through their ances-

tors, communally or individually since time immemorial, con-

tinuously to the present except when interrupted by war, force

majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a conse-

quence of government projects or any other voluntary dealings

entered into by government and private individuals/corpora-

tions, and which are necessary to ensure their economic, social

and cultural welfare. It shall include ancestral lands, forests,

pasture, residential, agricultural, and other lands individually

owned whether alienable and disposable or otherwise, hunting

grounds, burial grounds, worship areas, bodies of water, mineral

and other natural resources, and lands which may no longer be

exclusively occupied by ICCs/IPs but from which they tradition-

ally had access to for their subsistence and traditional activities,



particularly the home ranges of ICCs/IPs who are still nomadic

and/or shifting cultivators;

Ancestral Land, on the other hand refers to land occupied,

possessed and utilized by individuals, families and clans who

are members of the ICCs/IPs since time immemorial, by them-

selves or through their predecessors in interest, under claims

of individual or traditional group ownership, continuously, to

the present except when interrupted by war, force majeure or

displacement by force, deceit, stealth, or as a consequence of

government projects and other voluntary dealings entered into

by government and private individuals/corporations includ-

ing, but not limited to, residential lots, rice terraces or paddies,

private forests, swidden farms and tree lots;

The law includes provisions on:

• Ancestral domain rights, which includes the following

rights: (a) rights of ownership; (b) rights to develop lands

and natural resources; (c) rights to stay in the territories;

(d) rights in case of displacement; (e) rights to regulate

entry of migrants; (f ) rights to safe and clean air and wa-

ter; (g) right to claim parts of reservation; and (h) right to

resolve confl ict

• Formal recognition of the ancestral domains by virtue of

Native Title, shall be embodied in a Certifi cate of An-

cestral Domain Title (CADT), which shall recognize the

title of the concerned ICC/IP over the territories identi-

fi ed and delineated. Native Title refers to pre-conquest

rights to lands and domains which, as far back as memory

reaches, have been held under a claim of private owner-

ship by ICCs/IPs, have never been public lands and are

thus indisputably presumed to have been held that way

since before the Spanish Conquest

• Rights to self-governance, including rights to use own

commonly accepted justice systems; rights to fully

participate in decision-making; and rights to determine

priorities of development that a, ect their lives

• Responsibilities of IP/ICC to their ancestral domains

• Creation of the National Commission on Indigenous

Peoples (NCIP), which shall be the primary government

agency responsible for the formulation and implementa-

tion of plans to promote and protect the rights of the IP/

ICCs and the recognition of their ancestral domains and

rights. The NCIP shall be composed of commissioners

belonging to IP/ICCs. It also has quasi-judicial powers

• Process of delineation and recognition of ancestral

domains

• Option to secure Certifi cate of Title under CA 141 as

amended, or the Land Registration Law (Act No. 496) for

individual members of cultural communities, with re-

spect to individually owned ancestral lands. This option

must be exercised within 20 years from the approval of

the IPRA law or on November 22, 2007

Section 8 of the Act provides for the following Ancestral land

rights:

a) Right to transfer land/property among members of the

same ICCs/IPs, subject to customary laws and traditions

of the community concerned

b) Right to Redemption in cases where it is shown that the

transfer of land/property rights by virtue of any agree-

ment or devise, to a nonmember of the concerned ICCs/



IPs is tainted by the vitiated consent of the ICCs/IPs, or is

transferred for an unconscionable consideration or price,

the transferor ICC/IP shall have the right to redeem the

same within a period not exceeding fi fteen (15) years from

the date of transfer

Professor Marvic Leonen in his lecture entitled, “The IPRA:

An Overview of its Contents” , delivered at the 1st Judicial

Seminar on Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (Region III & IV),

on February 18, 2002 at PHILJA, Tagaytay City explained that

there are three kinds of ancestral lands.)

“First, there are ancestral lands that, are stand-alone or not

within an ancestral domain, and covered by Section 3(b) of the

IPRA law. Second, there are ancestral lands that are also stand

alone, but can be acquired through Section 12 of the IPRA, or

the option to secure a certifi cate of titled under C.A. No. 141, as

amended, or Land Registration Act No. 496…And third, there

are ancestral lands within an ancestral domain.”

“He clarifi ed further that, if ancestral lands that are stand-

alone are transferred or sold to non-indigenous people, then it is

valid, except that there is a right to redemption. Within fi fteen

(15) years, the indigenous group living within that area has the

right of redemption. This however does not govern ancestral

lands within an ancestral domain. Lands within ancestral do-

main cannot be sold; they are inalienable.”

The law also provides the following:

• Existing property rights regimes. Property rights within

the ancestral domains already existing and/or vested

upon e8 ectivity of the IPRA law shall be recognized and

respected.( Sec. 56)

• Communal rights. Subject to existing property rights, ar-

eas within the ancestral domains, whether delineated or

not, shall be presumed to be communally held. (Sec. 55)

• Natural resources within ancestral domains. The IP/ICC

shall have priority rights in the harvesting, extraction,

development or exploitation of any natural resources

within the ancestral domains. (Sec. 57)

The law further merged the ONCC and OSCC as organic of-

fi ces of the NCIP.

23. Republic Act No. 9054 (March 31, 2001) –

Strengthening and Expanding the Organic Act for the

ARMM

Amending Rep. Act No. 7634 (1989), this Act seeks to strengthen

and expand the Organic Act for the ARMM.

It provides that all lands and natural resources in the autono-

mous region that have been possessed or occupied by indi-

genous cultural communities since time immemorial, except

when prevented by war, force majeure or other forms of forcible

usurpation, shall form part of the ancestral domain. Such an-

cestral domain shall include pasture lands, worship areas, burial

grounds, forests and fi elds, mineral resources, except strategic

minerals such as uranium, coal, petroleum, and other fossil

fuels, minerals, oils, and all sources of potential energy; lakes,

rivers, and lagoons.



The law was apparently objected to by the some Moro groups

as an arbitrary and unilateral act of the Philippine government.

One of the most controversial provisions of the law is the remo-

val of the scope of ancestral domain of the Bangsamoro people

and the jurisdiction of the ARMM government over strategic

minerals, all sources of potential energy, lakes and other water

forms, national reserves and marine parks found within the area

of autonomy.

It has been widely denounced as to have been passed with-

out proper and su$ cient consultations with the people of the

ARMM and other stakeholders and that public hearings con-

ducted for the same were hastily done.

Present major laws governing public land disposition and

land registration of Moro ancestral lands:

• Act No. 2259 Cadastral Act which provides for the ca-

dastral survey and institution of compulsory and mass

judicial proceedings for the settlement and adjudication

of claims to all kinds of land in a particular municipal-

ity, city or specifi c tract of land initiated by the Director

of Lands upon order of the President whenever public

interest requires it

• P.D. 1529 known as the Real Property Registration Decree.

• Commonwealth Act No. 141 as amended or the third

Public Land Act. Although was in enacted 1936, it is still

being implemented up to this time as amendments have

been made therein from time

• RA 3872 or An Act to Amend Sections Forty-Four, Forty-

Eight and One Hundred Twenty of Commonwealth

Act Number One Hundred Forty One, as Amended,

Otherwise known as the “Public Land Act”, and For

Other Purposes

• RA 6371 or Indigenous People’s Rights Act (IPRA of 1997)

• Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1998 (RA No.

6657)

• RA 9054 or Strengthening and Expanding the Organic

Act for the ARMM (2001)



Endnotes:

1 Valenton v. Murciano, 3 Phil. 537 (March 30, 1904).2 Associate Justice from June 28, 1993 to December 7, 2006 and Chief Justice from December 8, 2006 to present.

3 347 SCRA 128 (December 6, 2000). The case GR No. 135385 was de-cided by the Supreme Court on a 7-7 split vote on December 6, 2000. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) based on the Rules of Civil Procedure, thus: “As the votes were equally divided (7 to 7) and the necessary majority was not obtained, the case was redeliberated upon. However, after redeliberation, the voting remained the same. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 56, Section 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition is DISMISSED.”

4 Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, Separate Opinion, Puno, J. (347 SCRA 128).

5 Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, Separate Opinion, Puno, J. (347 SCRA 128).

6 Ibid.7 Phils. 936 (February 23, 1909). 8 Phils. 936 (February 23, 1909). 9 “FERNANDO PRIMO DE RIVERA—Marquis of Estella; becomes governor,

April 15, 1880; cable opened between Luzón and Spain, 1880; royal decree orders repeal of tobacco monopoly, 1881; term marked by corruption in public offi ces; term as governor, April 15, 1880-March 10, 1883.” Quoted in “List of Philippine Governors,” Emma Helen Blair and James A. Robertson (eds.), The Philippine Islands, 1493-1898. Explorations by Early Navigators, Descriptions of the Islands and Their Peoples, Their History and Records of the Catholic Missions, as Related in the Contemporaneous Books and Manu-scripts, Showing the Political, Economic, Commercial and Religious Condi-tions of Those Islands from Their Earliest Relations with European Nations to the Close of the Nineteenth Century (55 volumes). Cleveland: The Arthur H. Clark Co., 1903-1909, Vol. 17, p.310. This voluminous collection will be cited as Blair and Robertson.

10 “EMILIO MOLÍNS—Segundo cabo of Philippines; governor (ad interim), March 10-April 7, 1883.” “Becomes governor (ad interim), for second time, and rules three days, April 1-4, 1885.” Quoted in “List of Philippine Gover-nors,” Blair and Robertson, ibid., Vol. 17, p.310.

11 Associate Justice from January 5, 1994 to August 9, 2004.12 Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, Separate Opinion,

Kapunan, J. (347 SCRA 128)13 390 SCRA 343, G.R. No. 107764 (October 4, 2002).14 Full Spanish text of the Maura Law of May 19, 1893 is found in Don Felix

Mauricio Roxas y Fernandez, Commentarios al Reglamento Provisional para el Regimen el Gobierno de las Juntas Provincials, creadas por Real Decreto de 19 de Mayo de 1893. Manila: Tipografi a y Almacen Amigos del Pais, 1894, pp.XII-XXXVI.

15 For the English text of the Maura Law, see Jose P. Laurel, Local Government in the Philippine Islands. Manila: La Pilarica Press, 1926, pp.317-338.

16 Ibid., p.317. 17 Ibid.18 “CAMILO POLAVIEJA—General; becomes governor, December 13, 1896

(Algue); Rizal executed, December 30, 1896; Tagal republic proclaimed, October, 1896; insurrection spreads; operations against insurgents by General Lachambre, 1897; Polavieja issues amnesty proclamation, January 1, 1897; effi cient service of loyal Filipino troops; term as governor, December 13, 1896-April 15, 1897.” Quoted in “List of Philippine Governors,” Blair and Robertson, op. cit., Vol. 17, p.311.

19 The Order of Polavieja can be found in John Roger Meigs Taylor, The Philip-pine Insurrection Against the United States (5 vols.). Pasay City: Eugenio Lopez Foundation, 1971, Vol. I, Exhibit 63, pp.275-276.

20 Former MILF Chairman Salamat Hashim to Carolyn O. Arguillas (Philippine Daily Inquirer, April 20, 2000 issue)



21 Annex 3 to Protocol No. 16, in Senate Document No. 62, Part I, 55th Con-gress, 3rd Session, A Treaty of Peace between the United States and Spain. Washington: Government Printing Offi ce, 1899, p.221.

22 The English and Spanish texts of the surrender message of Aguinaldo are found in Arthur MacArthur, Address to the Filipino People by Emilio Agui-naldo. Manila: Offi ce of the Military Governor in the Philippine Islands, 1901, pp.1-4.

23 Full copy of the Proclamation is available at http://www.msc.edu.ph/centen-nial/tr020704.html.

24 Act No. 718 is AN ACT MAKING VOID LAND GRANTS FROM MORO SULTANS OR DATTOS OR FROM CHIEFS OF NON-CHRISTIAN TRIBES WHEN MADE WITHOUT GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY OR CONSENT. Full text of the Act is found in Guevarra, Public Laws Annotated, op. cit., Vol. 3, pp.219-220.

25 Chapter IV, Sec. 12, Act No. 2874. Full text of Act No. 2874 can be found in Public Land Laws of the Philippine Islands in Force and Effect July 1, 1920. Washington: Government Printing Offi ce, 1920, pp.22-41.

26 Chapter IV, Sec. 22, Act No. 2874. Full text of Act No. 2874 can be found in Public Land Laws of the Philippine Islands in Force and Effect July 1, 1920. Washington: Government Printing Offi ce, 1920, pp.22-41.

27 Commonwealth Act No. 141 was AN ACT TO AMEND AND COMPILE THE LAWS RELATIVE TO LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. Copy of which can be found in Public Laws of the Commonwealth, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp.572-616.

28 Owen James Lynch, Jr. “Native Title, Private Right and Tribal Land Law: An Introductory Survey, Vol. 5, Philippine Law Journal)

29 (page 53, PHILJA Judicial Journal, Volume 4, Issue No. 13, July-September 2002)


66

Positioning Analysis of Land Laws Affecting the Moro Lands

In positioning theory, statements given unilaterally

(e.g., laws, policies, speeches, etc.) or in exchanges

(e.g., conversations, discourses, etc.) are analyzed

by: a) describing their underlying storyline, b)

highlighting the positions of people in the story-

line (i.e., what the speakers believe to be their own

rights and duties vis-à-vis those of other people),

and c) surfacing the apparent social meaning or intentions of

the statements. Together, these three interrelated elements of

statements (i.e., storyline, position, and meaning) are called

“Positioning Triangle” (Harre & van Langenhove, 1999).

This “Positioning Triangle” is dynamic in that it transforms

if its elements change, such as when the people depicted in the

storyline reject the way they are being positioned and push for

their repositioning. Each phase of the transformation of the

positioning triangle is called an episode. A new episode ushers

in when storylines change, repositioning of people happens, and

new meanings and intentions emerge.

This section presents a positioning analysis of land laws

a- ecting Moros’ access to their ancestral lands. This analysis

points to three episodes.

The First Episode:

The Moro Positioning in Adat or Customary Land Laws

The fi rst episode happened for centuries until before the 20thth

century when customary land laws or adat determined the land

rights of the Moro, as well as the land ownership and disposition

processes in Mindanao. These customary land laws had two

underpinning storylines. The fi rst storyline was that lands were

owned by the sultans and their chiefs of tribes. In this storyline,

the sultans and chiefs of tribes were positioned as having the

right to lease or grant ownership of lands, and their constituents

and all other people as obliged to seek their permission or their

generosity to occupy or acquire lands within the sultan’s or tribe’s

area of control. The social meaning was the portrayal of the

authority and preeminence of the sultans and the chiefs of tribes.



The second storyline of customary laws was that lands are

communally owned. In this storyline, no individual person was

positioned to have the right to own land and to assume control

over its disposition. The apparent social meaning was the depic-

tion of the importance of the collectives over the individual and

of the lands as a collective possession. Thus, individual land-

ownership was an incompatible, foreign concept and practice

among the Moro. Everyone enjoyed equal access and use of

lands owned by the tribe.

In rejecting the Spanish rule and its Regalian Doctrine, the

Moro were able to preserve their centuries-old adat or custom-

ary laws, and protect their selves and their lands from being

placed by the Spanish colonizers under the control of the Span-

ish Crown.

The Second Episode:

The Moro Positioning in Public Land Laws of the

American Colonial Government, Commonwealth

Period, and the Republic of the Philippines

The positioning of the Moro in the fi rst episode, however,

changed when the American colonizers in the early 20th cen-

tury deceptively established sovereignty over the Moro lands

and subjected these lands under their public land laws for the

Philippines. The land laws of the US government were com-

piled in Act 2874, otherwise known as the Public Land Act of

1919. As shown in the previous section of this paper, under this

law the Christians may apply for homestead patent for a public

agricultural land not exceeding 24 hectares, whereas the Moro

or non-Christian tribes were only allowed to apply for a permit

to till land with a maximum size of four hectares. Also, this law,

which was a reiteration of an earlier Act 718, made illegal and

void all lands granted “by sultans, datus or other chiefs of the so-

called non-Christian tribes, without the authority of the Spanish

government while the Philippines was under the sovereignty of

Spain, or without the consent of the United States Government

or of the Philippine Government since the sovereignty over the

Archipelago was transferred from Spain to the United States.”

This second episode was carried on during the Common-

wealth period with the crafting of Commonwealth Act 141 as an

almost complete adoption of Act 2874. The same law persisted

for more than 70 years until the amending of its provisions

pertaining to non-Christians in the 1980s and 1990s. Though

amended or repealed, these provisions on non-Christians con-

tinue to be found in the current version of CA 141.

Three storylines can be drawn from Public Land Act or CA

141. The fi rst storyline is related to the assigning of unequal land

rights to Christians and non-Christians. The second storyline

pertains to the bias of the law against female non-Christians.

The third storyline is on the abrogation of the customary power

of non-Christian tribes’ leaders to grant lands.

Storyline 1: CA 141’s conferment of unequal land rights to

Christians and non-Christians

Section 21 allows a non-Christian Filipino to acquire a permit of

occupation in a tract of land not more than four hectares with a

condition to cultivate and improve the land within six months.

Otherwise, the permit will be cancelled. Sections 44 and 48c



also entitle members of ‘national cultural minorities’, who have

occupied their land since July 4, 1955 or for at least 30 years,

to confi rm their land rights through application for free patent

or application for a certifi cate of title before the Court of First

Instance of the province where land is located.

On the other hand, CA 141 entitled all other citizens (pre-

sumed to be Christians) to own and use more hectares of land.

Sections 12, 19, and 44 allow this citizen at least 18 years age or

head of the family to acquire a patent (homestead or free patent)

for a tract of land not more than 12 hectares (24 hectares in the

original version). Section 22 also allows this citizen of lawful age

or head of family to purchase a maximum of 144 hectares of land

if individual or 1,024 hectares if corporation or association with

at least 60% of capital stock Filipino-owned. Section 33 further-

more allows this citizen and corporation or association to lease

1,024 hectares. But if the purpose of the lease is for grazing then,

then this individual or corporation is allowed to lease a maxi-

mum of 2,000 hectares.

Nonetheless, Section 84 gives non-Christian Filipinos hope

to enjoy the same benefi ts as all other citizens. Section 84 states

that if the Secretary of the Interior certifi es that the majority of

non-Christian inhabitants are “advanced su4 ciently in civiliza-

tion”, then the President may order that such lands of the public

domain within the reservation be granted to them. Also, non-

Christian inhabitants “may at any time apply for the general

benefi ts of this Act provided the Secretary of Agriculture and

Natural Resources is satisfi ed that such inhabitant is qualifi ed to

take advantage of the provisions of the same”.

The storyline that can be drawn, therefore, from these

sections of CA 141 is: Because Christians are more ‘civilized’

than non-Christians, then Christians deserve more land rights

than non-Christians. Along this storyline, the Christians are

positioned as entitled to acquire bigger tracts of lands than the

non-Christians and enjoy the full benefi ts of the law. On the

other hand, the non-Christians are positioned as obliged to

prove that they have advanced in civilization before they can

qualify for the same benefi ts that the law provides to all other

citizens (Christians).

In this positioning, the assigning of unequal land rights (posi-

tions) to non-Christians and Christians in CA 141 was assessed

to have an e7 ect of segregating the non-Christians from the

Christians and of treating non-Christians as people of lower

level of civilization. This may have a further e7 ect of pressuring

the non-Christians to acknowledge the authority of the State

and to conform to the standards or requirements of the State

with regard to land ownership.

Storyline 2. Unequal land rights of male and female non-

Christian Filipinos

Another element of CA 141 is the gender qualifi cation of a non-

Christian inhabitant to acquire a permit of occupation in a tract

of land not more than four hectares. The middle portion of

Section 84 states: “… granting to each member not already the

owner, by title or gratuitous patent, of four or more hectares of

land, the use and benefi t of only of a tract of land not to exceed

four hectares for each male member over eighteen years of age

or the head of a family…”



Thus, from this statement of qualifi cation, a gender-related

storyline can be drawn, that is: because the male is the head

of the family, then he has prior right to acquire land than the

female member of the family. In this storyline, the male non-

Christian is positioned as a leader, tiller and provider of the fa-

mily, whereas the female non-Christian is positioned as having

no right to own land. With this positioning, the gender qualifi -

cation of a non-Christian land patent applicant has an e& ect of

fostering gender inequality in landownership.

Storyline 3: Abrogation of the customary power of non-

Christian tribes’ leaders to grant lands

CA 141 established state control over all lands in the Philip-

pines and declared as illegal, void and of no e& ect all land grants,

transfers, and donations done by sultans, datus, and chiefs of

non-Christian tribes. In e& ect, CA 141 did not only abrogate the

customary land-related power of the chiefs of the non-Christian

tribes, but also marginalized and negated their customary land

laws. As Section 84 of CA 141 states:

“… all grants, deeds, patents, and other instruments

of conveyance of land or purporting to conveyor

transfer rights of property, privileges, or easements

appertaining to or growing out of lands granted

by sultans, datus or other chiefs of the so-called

non-Christian tribes, without the authority of the

Spanish government while the Philippines was

under the sovereignty of Spain, or without the

consent of the United States Government or of the

Philippine Government since the sovereignty over

the Archipelago was transferred from Spain to the

United States, and all deeds and other documents

executed or issued or based upon the deeds, patents,

and documents mentioned, are hereby declared to

be illegal, void, and of no e& ect.”

The storyline of Section 84 can be interpreted as: only the

State has the power to decide on how to dispose and use public

lands; therefore, all chiefs of non-Christian tribes are obliged to

act in accordance with the land rules of the State. In this story-

line, the State is positioned as the ruler, superior, and landowner;

whereas the chiefs of non-Christian tribes are positioned as ruled,

inferior, and tenants or non-landowners and therefore have no

control over the lands occupied or claimed by their members.

With this storyline and positioning, Section 84 will therefore

have an e& ect of establishing the control of State and removing

the authority of the non-Christian tribal chiefs in the disposi-

tion of land, even those undertaken during the time when the

Moro successfully thwarted Spanish colonization.

In sum, the storylines and positioning of Christians and non-

Christians in CA 141 refl ect an orientation that is prejudiced

against all non-Christians, especially females. In positioning the

non-Christians, who successfully opposed Spanish colonization,

as such, it can be said that historical injustice was committed

against them.



Because this injustice continued even after the American

colonization with the Philippine State’s adoption of Act 2874 in

CA 141, which was e( ective for around seven decades, this leaves

us to hypothesize on the impact of CA 141 on land confl icts and

asymmetrical relations between Muslims and Christian settlers

in Mindanao in the present time. This appears to be confi rmed

in two of the land confl ict stories of this study.

Under this second episode, Moro groups, such as the Moro

National Liberation Front (MNLF) and the Moro Islamic

Liberation Front (MILF), emerged and fought for justice and

for their right to self-determination. As a result, the Moro

rebels were able to push for the crafting and signing of the

Tripoli Agreement of 1976, which could have e( ected into their

repositioning.

The 1976 Tripoli Agreement provides for the establishment

of an autonomous government for the Muslims in southern

Philippines within the territorial integrity and sovereignty of

the Republic of the Philippines, specifi cally in 13 provinces and

all cities and villages situated therein. This autonomous govern-

ment shall have powers on Shariah, education, administrative

system, economic and fi nancial system, special regional security

forces, legislative assembly and executive council, and mines

and mineral resources. However, a repositioning of the Moro did

not happen because of the non-implementation of the Tripoli

Agreement.

The Third Episode:

Equal Acquisition of Land Ownership Rights among

Moro and Christian Citizens Alongside the Continued

Moro Struggle for Restorative Justice

The 1986 EDSA peaceful revolution led to the 1987 Philippine

Constitution, which guarantees equality of all citizens. Article

III Section 1 of the Constitution states, “No person shall be

deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law,

nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.”

In light of this principle of the Constitution, the discriminating

provisions of CA 141 are presumed to have been repealed.

Thus, the non-Christians need not be certifi ed to be “ad-

vanced su4 ciently in civilization” to qualify for the full ben-

efi ts of CA 141. Being a non-Christian is also not a hindrance to

becoming a benefi ciary of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform

Law of 1988. As such, the 1987 Philippine Constitution can be

said to have repositioned the non-Christians, including the Moro,

as citizens with rights equal to all other citizens of the country.

The 1987 Philippine Constitution includes a specifi c provi-

sion for the creation of an Autonomous Region in Muslim Mind-

anao (ARMM). For its enabling legislation, the Congress passed

in 1989 RA 6734, entitled “An Act Providing for the Autonomous

Region in Muslim Mindanao” and subjected it to a mandated

plebiscite. In this plebiscite, four of the thirteen provinces, but

none of the nine cities, within the proposed autonomous region

voted to join the ARMM (May, 2002). These four provinces were

Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi. However,



the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) rejected RA 6734

because it contravened the 1976 Tripoli Agreement.

Upon his assumption of the Presidency in 1992, President

Fidel Ramos revived the negotiations with the MNLF. The

eventual outcome was a peace agreement, signed in Jakarta on

September 2, 1996 by Prof. Nur Misuari and Ambassador Yan

(as chair of the GRP Peace Panel). The 1996 Peace Agreement

was supposed to facilitate the implementation of the unresolved

stipulations of the 1976 GRP-MNLF Tripoli Agreement. Simi-

lar to the fate of the 1976 Tripoli Agreement, however, the 1996

Peace Agreement was not truly implemented. According to Atty.

Randolph C. Parcasio Al Haj (n.d.):

“The legal processes used by the GRP in the

implementation of the Agreement were unilateral

acts done without any consultation with the other

High Contracting Parties i.e., the OIC and the MNLF.

These legal processes involved a combination of

executive and legislative fi ats. The executive fi at

was Executive Order 371 signed by former President

Fidel Ramos for the purpose of implementing

Paragraphs 1-20 of the Peace Agreement and the

other subsequent executive actions a1 ecting the

constituents in the Bangsamoro homeland. The

legislative fi at was Republic Act 9054.”

In 2001, the Congress passed RA 9054, entitled “An Act to

Strengthen and Expand the Organic Act for the Autonomous

Region in Muslim Mindanao,” amending RA 6734. This law took

e1 ect after approval by a majority of the votes cast in the above

four provinces that constituted the ARMM. Aside from the ap-

proval of the new ARMM law, the plebiscite also paved the way

for the inclusion of Basilan and Marawi City in ARMM.

The next and most recent Moro attempt at securing resto-

rative justice through peace negotiations with the Government

of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) was undertaken by the

Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). A year after the all-

out-war launched in 2000 by then President Joseph E. Estrada

against the MILF and two months after taking the presidency

through people’s power in January 2001, President Gloria

Macapagal-Arroyo (PGMA) signed an agreement with the MILF

on March 2001 for the resumption of peace talks. Then on June

2001, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP)

and the MILF signed the Agreement on Peace in Tripoli, Libya.

This agreement defi ned the major areas for discussion in

the formal peace negotiations between the GRP and the MILF,

namely, security, humanitarian, rehabilitation and develop-

ment, and ancestral domain. On July 2008, after seven years

of o1 -and-on negotiations, the panels of negotiators of the

MILF and GRP fi nally reached an agreement on the last and

most contentious issue of their peace negotiation process. This

was the Bangsamoro ancestral domain, which evolved into the

Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE). O6 cial representatives of

both parties signed a joint statement dated July 27, 2008 for the

formal signing of the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral

Domain (MOA-AD) in early August 2008.



The concepts and principles that are stated in the introducto-

ry section of the MOA-AD clearly show its storyline, positioning

and intent. The storyline is: the Bangsamoro people “have a defi -

nite historic homeland. They are the ‘First Nation’ with defi ned

territory and with a system of government having entered into

treaties of amity and commerce with foreign nations.” Along this

storyline, the panel of negotiators of both parties positioned the

Bangsamoro as having the authority over their ancestral domain

and ancestral land. Concepts and Principle #6 states:

“Both Parties agree that the Bangsamoro Juridical

Entity (BJE) shall have the authority and jurisdiction

over the Ancestral Domain and Ancestral lands,

including both alienable and non-alienable lands

encompassed within their homeland and ancestral

territory, as well as the delineation of ancestral

domain/lands of the Bangsamoro people located

therein.”

The last paragraph of Concepts and Principles #4 articulates

the intent of MOA-AD, that is to secure restorative justice for

the Moro. The paragraph states:

“The Parties concede that the ultimate objective of entrench-

ing the Bangsamoro homeland as a territorial space is to secure

their identity and posterity, to protect their property rights and

resources as well as to establish a system of governance suitable

and acceptable to them as a distinct dominant people.”

These concepts and principles are given fl esh in the three

major sections of the MOA-AD, namely: Territory, Resources

and Governance. Under the Territory section, the areas that will

be covered by the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) through

a plebiscite to be conducted by the Government are identifi ed.

This section states that the BJE shall have authority and juris-

diction over the ancestral domain and ancestral lands of the

Bangsamoro in the barangays to be included in the expanded

ARMM through a plebiscite.

Moreover, “the BJE shall have jurisdiction over the man-

agement, conservation, development, protection, utilization

and disposition of all natural resources, living and non-living

within its internal waters extending fi fteen (15) kilometers from

the coastline of the BJE area.” The latter is reiterated in the

Resources section, which states that “The Bangsamoro People

through their appropriate juridical entity shall, among others,

exercise power or authority over the natural resources within its

territorial jurisdiction.”

This second section also states that there will be “wealth-

sharing based on a mutually agreed percentage ratio in favor

of the BJE through an economic cooperation agreement or

arrangement over the income and revenues that are derived

from the exploration, exploitation, use and development of

any resources for the benefi t of the Bangsamoro people.” The



Governance section, on the other hand, stipulates that “the

relationship between the Central Government and the BJE

shall be associative characterized by shared authority and

responsibility…”

This repositioning of the Moro over their ancestral domain,

however, did not happen because the supposed signing of the

MOA-AD on August 5, 2008 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia was

aborted. A day before the scheduled signing of the MOA-AD,

the Philippine Supreme Court, responding to petitions from

local government o+ cials, issued a temporary restraining order

(TRO) against the signing of the MOA.

On October 14, 2008 the Supreme Court ruled that the MOA-

AD is unconstitutional. This e0 ectively stopped the adminis-

tration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (PGMA) from

entering into this deal with the MILF.

In sum, with the non-implementation of the 1976 Tripoli

Agreement and the 1996 Peace Agreement between the MNLF

and GRP, and the aborted signing of the MOA-AD between the

MILF and GRP, restorative justice issues have not been ad-

dressed and the assertion of the Moro for the recognition of

their right to self-determination has remained unfulfi lled.


76

Five Land Confl ict Stories of Moros in Central Mindanao

STORY 1A Land Dispute between Moro Claimants and Christian Settlers in Impao, Isulan, Sultan Kudarat

In May 1952, the Bureau of Lands (now Land Management

Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Re-

sources) awarded some 500 hectares to Caram Development

Corporation, Inc. (Caram), a private corporation said to be hold-

ing o+ ce in Makati, Metro Manila. The award was based on a

sales application (SA No. V-2445 (#-7134) fi led by Caram in 1946

on an area which was later found to be situated within Lot 26.

Also in 1952, Christian settlers began to arrive in Isulan, par-

ticularly in the sitio which later became Barangay Impao where

Datu Talipasan Impao has established a settlement. The Moro

and Christian communities co-existed harmoniously until war

in Central Mindanao in the 1970s displaced the heirs of Datu

Talipasan and other Moro residents in Barangay Impao and

neighboring barangays.

Background

The land dispute in the municipality of Isulan, Sultan Kudarat is

a case where government land policies once united two groups:

one original inhabitants of Mindanao and the other, settlers

from Visayas and Luzon. When the war in Mindanao in the 70’s

cleaved these groups, government land policies which were

implemented in abnormal and di+ cult circumstances created

a contest for a parcel of land to which both groups are claiming

rightful ownership.

The disputed area is located in Isulan’s northern portion,

spanning the contiguous barangays of Impao, Mapantig and

Dansuli. It is described as Lot 26 of a survey referred to as

Special Work Order (SWO) 17260 conducted on June 21 to De-

cember 2, 1941 and approved on October 10, 1956. Based on its

approved Technical Description (TD), Lot 26, SWO 17260 com-

prises 606.3550 hectares. The land described in the TD is named

under Datu Talipasan Impao, a local Moro leader as claimant.



In 1988, the Bureau of Lands in Manila ordered the revocation

of the land patent it gave to Caram on the ground of violation.

The order was based on a petition made by Bagua Mama (also

known as Datu Sanggutin, son of Datu Talipasan Impao) and 33

other petitioners. The order also directed the Bureau of Lands in

Tacurong, South Cotabato to distribute land awarded to Caram

to actual qualifi ed claimants.

In compliance, the Provincial Environment and Natural

Resources O* ce (PENRO) in Tacurong conducted a confi rma-

tory investigation on Lot 26. The investigators recommended

a survey be conducted on the area to identify actual occupants.

In 1990, the PENRO conducted the survey referred to as Isulan

Group Settlement Survey (Gss-12-000064).

The Isulan Group Settlement Survey covered about 312

hectares, the remaining area of which no surveys were made

subsequent to SWO 17260 to which Lot26 was part. The survey

yielded 162 lots, of which 147 were occupied by Christian set-

tlers, 10 by Muslim claimants. The area occupied by Christian

settlers constitutes about 263 (84% of 312) hectares, including

six lots which the survey had categorized as public lands. Mus-

lims, on the other hand, occupy about 32 (10% of 312) hectares.

The remaining lots were alloted for public use such as ba-

rangay facilities and school sites. Based on the records of the

Assessor’s O* ce of the municipality of Isulan, only about 36%

(96 out of 262 hectares eligible for titling) of areas claimed by

settlers had been titled. On the other hand, about 52% (16 out of

32 hectares eligible for titling) of areas are claimed by Moros. In

Barangay Impao, where most of the claims made by the settlers

are located, about 25% have been titled.

In 2005, Rakman and Nasser Talipasan, representing the

heirs of Datu Talipasan Impao, started to reassert legitimate

ownership of Lot 26 based on SWO 17260 Survey and on the

1988 decision of Bureau of Lands which precipitated the Isulan

Group Settlement Survey. They fi led a complaint before the

DENR, demanding the nullifi cation of the execution of the 1988

Order on the ground of actual fraud and misrepresentation.

They named as respondents the PENRO and the benefi ciaries of

Isulan Group Settlement Survey. They demanded that the Land

Management Bureau of the DENR nullify the Isulan Group Set-

tlement Survey and distribute lands awarded to Caram to them.

They have tried to re-occupy some parts of Barangay Impao but

were stopped by the town mayor who convinced them to hold

re-occupation in abeyance and settle matters diplomatically.

The benefi ciaries of Isulan Group Settlement Survey are yet

to be informed formally that a complaint had been fi led against

them regarding their claims on Lot 26. But they are confi dent

that the way by which they acquired lands from the previous

Moro occupants were legal and without malice. Because of this

they are prepared to defend their rights, fi rst in a peaceful man-

ner. However, they have intimated that they are also prepared

for other means.

The DENR, on the other hand, acted on the complaint of the

heirs and ordered a re-investigation of whether the PENRO ex-

ecuted the 1988 Order irregularly. The result of the investigation

is yet to be communicated to the heirs.

The parties to the dispute are maintaining the status quo.



The Parties

Heirs of Datu Talipasan Impao, represented by Nasser and

Rakman Talipasan

Datu Talipasan Impao, originally from Cotabato, was one of the

pioneering Moro settlers in Kalawag (now Isulan). He settled in

what is now Barangay Impao and rose in the ranks to be one of

the leaders of the Moro community. As one of the tribal leaders,

he was ‘awarded’ by the American government 600 hectares of

land for him and his troops. In the subsequent survey (SWO

17260) initiated by government, the land awarded to him was

described as Lot 26.1

Datu Talipasan passed on his leadership role to his son, Datu

Sanggutin who became the fi rst Punong Barangay of Impao.

He presided over the heirs of his father and a number of Chris-

tian settlers who had come and settled in the barangay. At the

outbreak of the war between the so-called Ilaga and Blackshirts

in the 70s, the Moros evacuated from Barangay Impao, leaving

behind, among others, their properties and land claims.

When the Moros returned to Isulan, brothers Nasser and

Rakman Talipasan, nephews of Datu Sanggutin, embarked on

recovering the land that was ‘awarded’ to their grandfather,

Datu Talipasan Impao. Nasser and Rakman are both practicing

civil lawyers. Nasser is a legal o. cer of the Department of En-

vironment and Natural Resources in ARMM, while Rakman is a

member of the Philippine National Police detailed in Datu Odin

Sinsuat, Maguindanao. Because of the level of their education

and professional experience, they have been tasked by the heirs

to pursue e/ orts of recovering land claims of Datu Talipasan,

their grandfather.

Christian residents who are benefi ciaries of Isulan Group

Settlement Survey

Settlers, mostly Christians from the Visayas and Luzon, came in

droves when they availed of a government-sponsored resettle-

ment program in Mindanao in the 1950s. Some of them landed

in what is now the municipality of Isulan, particularly in Baran-

gay Impao and its neighboring barangays. Like their counter-

parts in other areas, these settlers began and later established

themselves economically, befriended and lived harmoniously

with the inhabitants. In Barangay Impao, prominent among

these are settlers from Panay Island such as Antonio Lozada,

Gregorio Graza, Gregorio Lacuesta, Bautista Rosal, Jose Legario

Sr., Eliseo Hasigan Sr., Jesus Poras, former Leokadio Leysa,

Sopredo Embajador (dec.) and Felimon Arellano, Sr.

The settlers grew in numbers. When a controversy over the

ownership of the lands they had been occupying arose in the

1980s, they organized a group of petitioners which eventually

led to the distribution of a large portion of the barangay. The

distribution followed the survey conducted by the DENR in

1993 and referred to as Isulan Group Settlement Survey (Gss-12-

000064) on the same lot claimed by Datu Talipasan Impao.

The benefi ciaries of the Isulan Group Settlement are

composed of more than a hundred land occupants most of whom

are Christian settlers and few Moros families, all of whom were

led by Antonio Lozada who was then Punong Barangay. These

benefi ciaries have their respective claimed lots identifi ed in

the Gss -12-000064 Subdivision Plan. They are now led by Noel

Lozada, Antonio’s son and presently Punong Barangay of Impao.



Lands Management Bureau-Department of Environment

and Natural Resources

The Lands Management Bureau (LMB) of the Department of

Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) is also a stake-

holder as it was a respondent in a case fi led by the heirs of Datu

Talipasan Impao. The DENR through the Lands Management

Bureau and DENR Field O& ces is mandated to administer,

survey, manage, and dispose alienable and disposable (A&D)

lands and other government lands not placed under the jurisdic-

tion of other government agencies.2 The fi eld o& ces in Tacurong

and Isulan implemented the distribution of public lands in the

municipality of Isulan, including the lands claimed by Datu

Talipasan Impao.

Chronology of Events According to Each Party

Chronology of Events according to the Heirs of Talipasan

According to his heirs, Talipasan Impao was one of the pioneer-

ing Moro settlers of Isulan. He was believed to have arrived in

the area in the early 1930s. He, together with his four brothers,

travelled from an indeterminate location along the Matampay

River (a place now part of Cotabato City) and went upriver via

the Rio Grande de Mindanao, then to the Bakat or Buluan River.

He proceeded to Isulan and stayed in what is now Barangay Im-

pao. He later married a woman who belonged to the local royalty

who made him one of their leaders.3

During the presidency of Sergio Osmeña (1944-46), Datu Tali-

pasan Impao was appointed District President of Dansuli, Dula-

wan (then part of the Cotabato Empire) by the late Congressman

Salipada K. Pendatun who was then serving as governor of the

old Cotabato Empire. He was also chosen as the tribal leader in

Kalawag area. During World War II, he was said to have fought on

the side of the Americans against Japanese and had been impri-

soned in Surala, while his companions were all killed.4

After the war, Datu Talipasan Impao, being the leader and

chieftain of the tribes, acquired a parcel of land situated at what

is now barangays Dansuli and Impao in Isulan, Sultan Kudarat.

He occupied the land by openly and continuously.5

In the 1960’s, the Talipasans had already established a

harmonious relationship with a number of settlers from Vi-

sayas and Luzon who had come and taken residence and farm

in Kalawag. In fact, one of them, Antonio Lozada, became their

very close family friend. The Talipasan gave some parcels of land

to Lozada in addition to what he already had purchased at that

time. According to one of the heirs, Lozada was a principal of

the Lyceum School in the area and had made himself landlord to

some Christian settlers.

Datu Talipasan Impao worked towards having his land claims

distributed exclusively to his direct descendants, close relatives

and some Christian settlers.6 He advised nephew Datu Suma

Ampatuan (fi rst mayor of Isulan, Sultan Kudarat) to create

a new and separate barangay where the heart of his claimed

area is located. Datu Talipasan donated a portion of his land

claims for the Barrio Site of Barangay Impao. He intended the

site exclusively for residential purposes with separate areas for

the Muslim and Christian residents. He also donated an area

dedicated exclusively for the school site. With these develop-

ments, the area was later elevated into a barangay. His eldest son



Datu Sanggutin Talipasan was made the fi rst Capitan del Barrio.

Lozada was appointed as Datu Sanggutin’s secretary.

As age was taking its toll on Datu Talipasan, he put his son

Datu Sanggutin in charge of the distribution of his lands. But

before the latter was able to fully distribute as tasked, he discov-

ered that a certain Caram Development Corporation of Manila

claimed 500 hectares within the portion of the Lot 26. On behalf

of Datu Talipasan Impao, he, under the name Bagua Mama

Impao, and 33 others fi led their opposition against the miscel-

laneous sales application of the said corporation.

At the outbreak of the Martial Law in 1972, the heirs of

Talipasan, including Datu Sanggutin, upon the instruction of a

close relative, Datu Akilan Ampatuan, moved out of the baran-

gay. This was purely based on the hearsay that lawless elements

believed to be members of the Ilaga would cut their ears o. and

mutilate their bodies. Abandoned houses and mosques were

burned and destroyed by these lawless elements and they carted

away all personal belongings they could fi nd left behind by those

who fl ed. Muslims thought the government was no longer able

to provide services such as security for its citizens even if at that

time, Barangay Impao was not a. ected by the war.7 7

It was not until 1978 that Datu Sanggutin and other heirs

returned to Isulan. They landed in Dansuli where most of their

relatives lived. Dansuli is a barangay adjacent to Barangay

Impao. Datu Sanggutin narrated that some stayed near the

barracks of the Philippine Constabulary in Kalawag II “to cool

things o. , in a place where it is relatively safe; even during mili-

tary operation. At that time, Muslims were protected there, and

the same time, the landowners in the area were our relatives,

my father’s siblings.”8 Other heirs remained in evacuation for

almost fi fteen years and consequently, “everything was lost from

the family: permanent sources of income, permanent home, and

access to education”. Among the things they lost touch of was

the land claims of their grandfather.9 Feeling hopeless, the heirs

of the Datu Talipasan Impao longed to seek justice against the

perpetrators who burned their houses and mosques.

In 2005, Rakman Talipasan, one of the grandchildren of Datu

Sanggutin and heir of Datu Talipasan Impao, learned of their

grandfather’s history and land claims at a family gathering.10 A

copy of the old survey plan was shown to him containing several

lots, one of which bore the name of his grandfather, described as

Lot 26, SWO 17260.

Rakman secured in October 2006 a certifi ed copy of the

approved survey plan including technical description from the

DENR XII O5 ce. Along with other documents gathered from

di. erent sources, he discovered the following:

• Area of Lot 26 claimed by his grandfather was comprised

of 607.0064 hectares situated in now Bgys, Impao, Dan-

suli and Mapantig, Isulan, Sultan Kudarat

• A survey was conducted on June 21 to December 2, 1941

and approved by the Bureau of Lands Manila on October

10, 1956

• A case was fi led by Bagua Mama Impao (aka Datu Sanggu-

tin Talipasan) and 33 others against Caram Development

for the cancellation of Sales Application V-2445 (E-7134);

• A decision was made on January 4, 1988 by the Bureau of

Lands Manila favoring Bagua Mama Impao



• A survey was conducted on October 28, 1990, identifi ed

as Isulan Group Settlement Subdivision (Gss-12-00064)

comprising of 312 hectares in 160 lots; the survey plan

contained the notation “This survey covers portion of lot

26, SWO-17260 formerly claimed by Datu Talipasan and

the Caram Development Co., Inc. As per decision dated

January 4, 1988 of LMB, Director Abelardo G. Palad Jr.,

the award dated May 10, 1952 in favor of Caram Develop-

ment Corporation is ordered revoked and Sales Applica-

tion No. V-2445 (#-7134) ordered cancelled”11

On October 3, 2005, Rakman Talipasan wrote to the Secre-

tary of the DENR, questioning the execution of the decision on

the case fi led by his uncle, Datu Sanggutin. His main argument:

if the decision had been made in favor of his grandfather, why

didn’t his grandfather benefi t from such a decision? His letter

contained the following issues for investigation:

1. Why said o9 ce did not conduct an ocular investigation

over Lot 26, SWO No. 17260 prior to the evacuation of the

heirs of the owners of said property

2. Why said o9 ce conducted hearing/ocular investigation

over Lot 26, SWO No. 17260, when in fact that they knew

that direct heirs of the owners were no longer in the place

3. Why said o9 ce proceeded with the public hearing when

in fact they knew the heirs were no longer in that place,

thus, e; ectively depriving them of the right to testify and

to defend their right to the property

4. Why said o9 ce distributed Lot 26 to the claimants on the

basis that they are the present occupants of the lot and de-

liberately excluded all direct heirs of the owner of said lot;

5. Whether or not said o9 ce was used as instrument by the

lawless elements of the “land grabbing association”

6. The barangay site of Impao was an initiative of their

uncle (Datu Sanggutin Talipasan Impao) intended and

exclusively used for residential lots of the Moro and

Christian residents in separate areas. However, the

entire area, including those alloted for the Muslims, was

now fully occupied by the Christian residents. Several

attempts to get back such portion for the Muslims were

refused by barangay o9 cials for unknown reasons

The letter also requested the Secretary to extend e; orts for a

part of Lot 26 to be given to the direct heirs.

On October 16, 2005, Rakman wrote to the Regional Execu-

tive Director of the DENR XII, reiterating the issues he raised in

his earlier letter to the DENR Secretary. He furthermore raised

objections on the public land classifi cation of lots surveyed un-

der Gss-12-000064, claiming these as “private property”12 of the

original claimant (Datu Talipasan), and as such must be given

immediately to the original claimant’s heirs. He was referring

to parcels labeled as Lots 97, 157, 56, 120 and 157. In this letter,

Rakman sought the assistance of the duly constituted author-

ity in determining whether or not their rights over the claims of

Datu Talipasan still existed. He requested the following action to

be taken:

1. Subdivide the whole Lot 26, SWO-17260 in favor of the

heirs of the claimant, Datu Talipasan Impao

2. Distribute Lot 26, SWO-17260 in favor of the Datu’s

heirs, now numbering more than 200 members



3. Re-investigate all the occupants of Lot 26 with respect to

their modes/legal basis of acquisition of the land

4. Recall the Isulan Group Settlement Subdivision (Gss-12-

00064) and other subdivisions made on the basis of Lot

26 and to deny all future applications for land titles with

respect to this lot, until the heirs’ rights over the above-

mentioned claim will be fi nally denied by the duly consti-

tuted authority of the government with due process of law

5. Deny applications for titles by the Barangay Council of

Impao with subdivision plan of Lot 160, Gss-12-00064

containing an area of 4.1199 hectares until the allotted lot

for Muslims within the Impao Barrio Site shall be com-

pletely given to them

6. Help the heirs of the claimant/s recover possession of the

allotted lot intended for the Muslims in the portion of

Impao Barrio Site now occupied by the Impao Barangay

Hall and several residents

7. Help the heirs of the claimant/s recover possession of the

portion of the Impao School Site now being used by an

individual for farming

On Oct 18, 2006, Undersecretary Manuel D. Gerochi wrote

Rakman that he had issued a memorandum instructing the

Regional Executive Director (RED) of the DENR XII to take ap-

propriate action on the matter he raised in his letter.

In November 23, 2006 Rakman fi led a complaint before the

o3 ce of the RED of the DENR XII, Koronadal City and demand-

ed for the nullifi cation of the execution of the decision of Bureau

of Lands in Manila dated January 04, 1988 on the ground of

actual fraud and misrepresentation in the distribution of Lot 26,

SWO 17260. The complaint named as respondents the DENR

– Sultan Kudarat Province and Isulan Group Settlement Subdi-

vision led by Mr. Antonio Lozada, et al. He demanded from the

RED the following actions:

1. Issue an order directing all the occupants a6 ected or

involved in the fraudulent execution of the above men-

tioned order to show cause why their respective rights,

titles, or interests shall not be considered null and void

2. Issue an order directing the agency or department

concerned to desist from issuing permits, clearances or

documents relative to any application involving the land

subject of this investigation

3. Direct the local register of deeds of Isulan, Sultan Kuda-

rat to defer issuance of any certifi cate of title involving

any portion of the land subject of the investigation

4. Direct the respondent DENR Tacurong City to produce

or provide the o3 cial document, report, inventory of

the land subject of this investigation in relation to the

control, administration and distribution of the above-

mentioned land, in consonance with the decision dated

January 04, 1988

In early 2007, the heirs paid a visit to Mr. Lozada, bringing

along their uncle Datu Sanggutin Talipasan, the old friend of

the Lozada family. They were warmly welcomed by the Lozada

family, and even gave thanks that they were able to return

home safely. They were also told that their houses were burned

by the members of the so-called Ilaga. The two families set a

covenant that they will build a muti-purpose building right at

the boundary segregating the Christian and Moro residents.

The building was to serve as a mark of equal right of the two



communities over the barangay. The Muslims ordered 500

hollow blocks and two truck loads of sand and gravel for the

project. After laying the foundation of the building, posts

and several piles of hollow blocks, a notice of suspension was

handed over to the heirs. The notice came from the municipal

government of Isulan, and contained an order of suspension

for the construction of the building. The heirs and the barangay

o% cials were called to the o% ce of the municipal Mayor to

resolve the dispute.

At the municipal hall, the heirs reiterated their interest that

the construction of said structure would usher in the resolution

of dispute and restore the Moro-Christian peaceful coexistence

which reigned before the Muslims went into evacuation. They

reminded the barangay o% cials present that the construction

had been discussed in earlier meetings where Datu Sanggutin

and Antonio Lozada agreed to rebuild Datu Sanggutin’s house

where it once stood. The heirs were o( ended by the order with

which Atty. Aurelio Preires, the legal o% cer of the municipality

of Isulan, issued to the heirs to hold construction in abeyance.

Nevertheless, the Moro heirs obeyed the order of the local gov-

ernment unit, pending future dialogues to resolve dispute.

On March 12, 2007, Rakman wrote the RED DENR XII, mani-

festing doubt regarding the composition of a Technical Working

Group formed to investigate the dispute to come up with objec-

tive fi ndings. He had been furnished a copy of an order made by

DENR o% ce in Tacurong City, forming and directing the TWG

to attend to the matters related to the complaints fi led by the

heirs of the claimant of Lot 26. Because of this, Rakaman re-

quested that the CENRO/PENRO inhibit himself from heading

and conducting the investigation on the ground that said o% cer

(David C. Ines, Chief, Land Administration Unit) are respon-

dents in their complaint pending in the DENR o% ce. In same

letter, Rakman in the “interest of justice and to come up with a

more comprehensive fact-fi nding report,” proposed an alterna-

tive composition of an investigating team namely, RED-DENR

XII, Head/Chair of Committee and/or Hon. Abraham Luminog,

RTD for Lands; any o% cer of the DENR XII representative;

NBI-Central Mindanao, Cotabato City; O% ce of the President-

O% ce of Muslim A( airs12; and representative of the heirs of the

late Talipasan Impaor13. To date, Rakman is still awaiting the

response of DENR to his protest.

Chronology of Events according to the Settlers

The settlers started to arrive in present-day Isulan in 1952. They

came to Kalawag, Isulan’s Poblacion which was then already an

established settlement. From there, they quickly explored the

mostly forested and sparsely populated area to look for income

and place in which to settle. Following are accounts of some of

those who came and eventually settled in Barangay Impao:

1. Antonio Lozada (as recounted by his son Punong Barangay

Noel Lozada)

“My father Antonio is originally from Lambunao,

Iloilo. Before coming to Mindanao, he had just earned

a degree in Education. He felt bad that he was rejected

in a job because of other reasons than his professional

capacities. Because of this, he sold the properties

he inherited from his parents. With the inheritance

money, he bought ten carabaos and with some workers

sailed to Mindanao to begin a new life. Upon arriving,



he discovered that land can be acquired in exchange

for a carabao. He bought lands from Datu Sanggutin

and a certain Sampulna. Aside from buying lands and

setting up farms, he also taught in Kalawag Institute,

Isulan and Quezon Colleges of Southern Philippines,

Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat.”

2. Celedonio Graza

“I am an Ilocano. We came from Sta. Rosa, Nueva

Ecija in Central Luzon. We landed in Kalawag II. In

1952, I attended high school at Kalawag Institute.

My father came here in Barangay Impao to look for

areas where we could farm. At that time, this area was

called by Muslims as “Palaw” ( hill). This was then

vacant. There were plenty of big trees; there were no

roads, only trails. When we had started clearing and

working the land, someone came forward to tell us the

land was theirs. We later found out that the claimant

was a member of the Talipasan Family. It was Kagi Ali

who actually gave us permission to settle here. Kagi

Ali was Datu Sanggutin’s elder brother. Their family

owned vast tracts of land here and in Lower Dansuli.

My father secured permission to settle in exchange

for a carabao. At that time, land was not expensive

because the area was still forested. At that time also,

there was no subdivision of lots. They just pointed out

the boundaries of the area that they were giving. The

basis was what they termed as “Taman sa mailay, laki

(as far as the eyes can see, land is mine).” Kagi Ali gave

us an area comprising nine hectares.

Until now, we are thankful that we encountered no

problems with our land. There are no other claimants.

We had this land surveyed and a title was issued in

1987. Aside from this land which my siblings divided

among us, I also acquired land I bought after it was

mortgaged to me. I have also applied for and later ac-

quired a title to that land.”

3. Gregorio Lacuesta

“I am an Ilonggo who came to Mindanao in search for

a better life. When I arrived, I found that carabaos

were not popularly used in farming. I brought in a

carabao from Iloilo, and with it, started to cultivate

lands of Moros on a “partida” (sharecropping) basis.

After about seven years, I was able to accumulate sav-

ings to buy land that was initially mortgaged but later

sold to me. The transactions were witnessed and ap-

proved by Datu Sanggutin, who at that time was said

to attest legitimacy of land transactions between the

settlers and Moros. Aside from securing Datu Sanggu-

tin as witness, I also sought services of the local fi scal

and judge to make the transactions legal.”

4. Jose Hasigan

“My father arrived here in the 1950’s. There were no

roads then; instead, big trees stood where they are now.

My father was one of the pioneers in this place. It was

about 1960 when the school was built there, the roof of

which came from the tall grasses. The school was pri-

mary school. According to my father, they came here

without any capital aside from their labor, and that



the lot where we are sitting in now, he had bought from

Datu Sanggutin. My father secured a title to this land

in the 1960s during Magsaysay’s presidency. In that

title it said that the adjoining lot was public lands.

I was born in 1960. I was born here, which makes me a

native of Impao. It was here where I was born, where

blood was spilled at my birth. I grew up here. We cul-

tivated the land my father acquired; and we are still

cultivating same land to the present.

My father told us to take care of the land because he said

it was his only property which we were able to own by

our e* orts. This is the very land we are cultivating now.”

5. Santos Torreñas

“I came in 1956 as a young man. I left my parents in

Catanduanes and went with migrants to Mindanao. I

worked as farmhand and later bought lands from my

savings. I brought in my parents in 1963 when I was

able to establish a way of living here.”

Other residents of Barangay Impao underwent similar

experience in coming to and acquiring land in Isulan. When

they arrived, they found the area with little or no development

whatsoever. According to them, many started with establishing

sharecropping arrangement with Moros who identifi ed them-

selves as owners of land. Settlers respected the Moros as the

original inhabitants of the area. In the succeeding years, they

were living in a community with harmony and respect for one

another’s rights. “No Muslim or Christian resident felt his/her

rights were violated,” according to Tyrone Rosal. 14 The commu-

nity helped one another in cases where someone needed shelter

for the night, women giving birth, etc.

Because of the growing number of residents, a school was

established in 1962 mainly through their collective e0 orts. A

certain Mr. Pablo Ko donated a two-room schoolbuilding. Mrs.

Herminigilda Rosal and Miss Dolores Diaz were the names of

the fi rst teachers.15There was 50-50 distribution of Muslim-

Christian classroom population; students maintained harmoni-

ous relationships, and religion did not a0 ect school activities

such as Christmas parties and Boy Scouting, where Christian

and Muslim students equally participated.

On October 29, 1962, President Diosdado Macapagal signed

Executive Order 164 creating Barangay Impao out of the former

Benaba-e, a sitio of Barrio Dansuli. The name “Impao” was given

in honor of the late chieftain, Datu Talipasan Impao, who do-

nated the barrio site.16 In acknowledgment of Datu Talipasan’s

generosity and his family’s infl uence in the barangay, his eldest

son, Datu Sanggutin became the recognized leader, and fi rst

Punong Barangay.

During the War in the 1970s, Barangay Impao was relatively

una0 ected. Although there were sightings of Ilaga members

passing through especially in the sitio along the river, there were

no encounters taking place in the barangay. Even as atrocities

were being committed against the Muslims in other parts of the

municipality, the settlers were protective of their Muslim neigh-

bors. In one instance, some of them hid their Muslim friends

and confronted pursuing men thought to be Ilaga members. In



another incident, settlers helped some 600 evacuating Muslims

who fl ed on foot from Barangay Daladak, Barangay Langkong in

Isulan and from some parts of the neighboring municipality of

Esperanza. When they reached the Barangay it was almost about

6 o’clock in the evening. They decided to stay inside the school.

The settlers provided beddings for them and posted guard while

the evacuees slept. The following morning, the settlers arranged

for transportation for the evacuees.

When the Muslim residents in Barangay Impao themselves

decided to leave in fear of their safety, their settler-neighbors

helped them in arranging transportation to their desired

destination. Some went as far as Cotabato and Maguindanao.

But most of them did not go far, and instead took refuge near

the barracks of the Philippine Constabulary located at nearby

Barangay Kalawag. The departure of Muslims caused a sig-

nifi cant drop in population of the barangay from about 3,000

to only 700.17 The o, cials, fearing permanent closure of the

barangay school (classes had already been suspended for more

than three months) and loss of status as barangay, invited the

Muslim residents who fl ed to the barracks to come back and be

assured of the same protection they were given at the height of

the war. Most of the Muslims did not come back even when it

was already peaceful. Nor did they resume tending their farms.

At that time farming was considered not very profi table due to

a long drought. Some of them mortgaged or sold their lands in

Barangay Impao. Others put up businesses in the town’s market.

The houses they left behind were slowly taken over by relatives

of settlers who came to work as contract farmers.

In the early 1980s, word spread about Caram Development

Corporation, a company everybody had heard of but very few

had known nor actually saw. Up until that time, they only knew

that Caram had been the claimant of the land they were occu-

pying. In fact, their area was called “Caram Claim.” But no one

cared as everybody did not feel its presence or operation. An

aide of the then Governor Duque informed them about the sta-

tus of their lands and the award given to Caram. The residents

began to organize to address tenurial security. During that time,

most of the areas previously held by Muslims have already been

sold to settler-residents. With then Punong Barangay Antonio

Lozada leading, about 133 residents agreed to formally question

the sales application and eventual award to Caram in a petition.

They sought the help of politicians and hired the services of a

lawyer to personally attend to their petition in Manila.

As a response to their petition, an investigation was conduct-

ed by the DENR in 1985. Some of the settlers testifi ed against

Caram as having no sign of presence or activity the area. In 1987,

almost all occupied areas in Barangay Impao had been surveyed

and issued titles.

In 2005, some 30 Muslims of the Mindal family returned to

Impao, along the river where most of them were once concen-

trated. They asked barangay o, cials if they could go back to

their land. The barangay o, cials told them that the land being

theirs, no one could stand in the way of them returning. Some of

these returning families were from Barangays Dansuli and Bual.



In 2006, the Punong Barangay Noel Lozada invited Rakman

Talipasan to a meeting, but the meeting did not push through.

Also around that time, some residents received complaints

from the Moros protesting the use of “Impao” in the signage at a

Christian church in the barangay. The residents felt the protest

was made out of anger18, and removed the signage.

In March 2007, a Moro group some of whom were identifi ed

as nephews of Datu Sanggutin suddenly occupied the vacant

homelot near the barangay hall. The Moros claimed the lot

was theirs and started building a structure. According to Noel

Lozada, his father led the Moros to the spot and pointed at it as

that of Datu Talipasan’s. His father did not know that the lot had

been bought by the barangay government and had intended it

for public facilities.

The incident was settled with the help of Mayor Matias who

ordered suspension of construction pending resolution of the

dispute. Matias summoned to the municipal hall the barangay

o- cials and the heirs of Datu Talipasan. In that meeting, baran-

gay o- cials informed the heirs that the lot where they started

building a structure was in fact owned by the barangay govern-

ment, having bought it from another settler-occupant who in

turn bought it from a Moro. They also presented the plans for

the lot as the site for a future community gym. They then o/ ered

other areas in the barangay where the Moros could occupy.

After the meeting, the construction was discontinued. The

barangay o- cials assumed that even though the heirs’ patriarch

donated the lot in the past, they were aware that the donated

lot was still classifi ed as public lands. They also said that even

with a Deed of Donation, “we cannot say it was a valid docu-

ment because at that time they were considered by government

as claimants to the public land. They probably knew that the

Governor was planning to use the land for a gymnasium, they no

longer came back because the use of the land was for barangay

development. Whether that was the case or they accepted our

argument, we do not know since after the meeting there were no

further moves and reaction on their part.”19

As to the alternative lot o/ ered by the barangay o- cials for

the Moros to occupy, the heirs signifi ed they were not interested

after inspecting it. They informed Tyrone Rosal, barangay

secretary, of their disinterest through a mobile text message.

Chronology of events according to the DENR20

In July 1946, the then Bureau of Lands received a reconstituted

sales application of Caram Development Corporation on an area

later identifi ed as portion of Lot 26 SWO 17260. The application

was a replacement of the original which was reportedly lost.

Caram in the sales application presented its Articles of Incorpo-

ration duly approved by the Securities and Exchange Commis-

sion on April 12, 1946. On May 23, 1951, Deputy Land Inspector

Manuel Suncio reported that the land applied for “is covered

with cogon, talahib, second growth forest, patches, permanent

trees consisting of bettlenut trees about 20 years old, camachili,

jackfruit, bamboo, fruit trees, rice fi eld in various sizes from

3 to 20 hectares owned by di/ erent Muslim families, namely,

Alay Bukid, Salawah Sibat and others.”21 On May 20, 1952, the

application of Caram was approved and subject land was awar-

ded to the corporation.



In 1985, the Depatment of Natural Resources acted on a reso-

lution made by the defunct Batasang Pambansa, urging it to:

1. Investigate, consistent with the Land Reform and land

distribution, ownership and development programs

of the government, the petition of farmers in the Mu-

nicipality of Isulan, SK to cancel the award on the sales

application of a private corporation over a large tract of

land... for alleged violation of the terms and conditions of

the award; and,

2. Give due course to (a) their applications over their

respective areas of actual possession, occupation and cul-

tivation and the (b) petition of Antonio L. Lozada and 133

others against the Sales Application No. 2445 (E-V-1134)

of the Caram Development Corporation, Inc.22

It subsequently conducted an onsite investigation on May

23-25, 1985. The hearings were headed by then Supervising

Special Investigator Isagani P. Cartagena of the Legal Division

of the Bureau of Lands, and assisted by District Land O/ cer of

Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat. The hearing was attended by, among

others, (1) Atty. Alejandro T. Palencia, counsel for petitioners;

(2) Municipal Mayor of Isulan, Hon. Conrado Buencamino;

(3) O/ cials of Barangay Impao; (4) petitioners numbering 100

persons, among whom were witnesses, namely: Jose Legario,

Tomas Calong, Violeta Saavedra. There were no representatives

of Caram. Everyone who attended the hearing testifi ed that they

had not met any personnel nor seen any land development made

by Caram. Mayor Buencamino testifi ed that sometime in the

1970s, a certain Atty. Tagaraw approached him for assistance

in the investigation of a case between Caram and the actual

occupants, and, that he (Buencamino) assumed that Caram was

willing to pay the people for the rights on the land, including

the improvements. He further testifi ed that he refused to grant

assistance as requested.23

An ocular inspection was also conducted during the investi-

gation. The fi ndings were:

• That the area applied for by Caram refers to Lot26, SWO

17200 comprising some 600 hectares by then a fully

developed land

• Claimed land is traversed by a three km national highway

and criss-crossed by several barangay roads;

• Claimed land is subdivided into 131 family-size farmlots,

occupied by the petitioners

• Several portions claimed land are occupied by govern-

ment agencies, i.e. Provincial Action Center, etc

• Improvements made on claimed land were introduced by

the national and local government and the petitioners;

• A greater portion of Lot26 is planted to rice and corn

with patches of seasonal crops and coconuts and various

fruit-bearing trees

• Caram has not occupied the land nor introduced im-

provements on the land

• 500 hectares of Lot26 is applied for by Caram Develop-

ment Corporation under SA V-2445, the boundaries of

which cannot be located by inspecting team;

• Quite prominent in the area is 50 hectares occupied by

Muslims that was segregated from the sales application of

the corporation and this portion is along the river where

permanent improvement still exists up the present.24



Two Muslim witnesses were also interviewed during the ocu-

lar inspection. These were identifi ed as Hji. Kasam Lidasan and

Mamalangka Bansawan, both 97 years old. They corroborated

the testimony settlers had earlier made.

Based on testimonies made by petitioners, ocular inspection

results and documents on record and presented by petitioners,

the investigating team concluded that Caram:

1. Violated the terms and condition of the land award by

abandoning the land as it does not have (a) any resem-

blance of occupation or cultivation, (b) caretaker or

representatives in the premises;

2. At the time it fi led their application for the land, portions

of the land applied for were already occupied and pos-

sessed long before the war by Muslims with some of them

transferring their rights to the present petitioners.

Engr. Cipriano B. Catudan, District Land O- cer of Bureau

of Lands, Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat conducted an investiga-

tion on the claim of Caram. In the report he submitted to the

Bureau of Lands’ Director in Manila dated July 12, 1985, he

attached a sketch plan showing the individual occupation of the

claimants, a list of claimant-occupants, and list of patented lots

within Lot No. 26, Swo-17260.25 The list of claimants indicated

the individual who occupied the lot area, improvements therein

and individual reference of tax mapping records of the Munici-

pal Assessor’s O- ce. Based on the list, Lot 26 comprised about

626.4138 hectares located in Bgys Impao, Mapantig and Dansuli.

The other list showed 17 lots patented to 17 patentees, with cor-

responding survey reference, patent numbers and date of issue,

the earliest of which was September 8, 1960.

The results of the investigation were forwarded to the

Chairperson of the Committee on Natural Resources, Batasang

Pambansa, in a report made on October 22, 1985.

On January 04, 1988, Abelardo G. Palad, Jr., Bureau of Lands

Manila Director ordered the following: 1) revocation of land

awarded to Caram; and, 2) for “the District Land O- cer at

Tacurong, South Cotabato to take active control and administra-

tion of the premises until these shall have been distributed to

actual qualifi ed applications/claimants in accordance with the

attached sketch plan.”26

Aside from the patent violations made by Caram, the Bureau of

Lands justifi ed its decision as would “make possible land distribu-

tion to [the] greatest number of people without fi nancial burden

on the part of the government and will promote the National Rec-

onciliation Development Program (NRDP) of Sultan Kudarat.”27

In compliance with Director Palad’s order, the Provincial En-

vironment and Natural Resources O- ce in Tacurong conducted

a confi rmatory ocular investigation which was carried out by

Rhawel M. Pamplona, Special Investigator I and David C. Ines,

Land Management Examiner/DPLI. Based on the results of

the investigation, Pamplona and Ines recommended in its joint

report dated Sept. 11, 1990, to the Regional Executive Director of

DENR XII a subdivision survey conducted in favor of the actual

occupants of Lot 26.28

The recommendation to conduct the survey was approved

and on October 5, 1990 Dir. Dacilo M. Adap, the Regional Tech-

nical Director (RTD) of DENR XII authorized Engr. Vicente



B. Militante, Chief Survey Party of DENR XII’s Land Manage-

ment Sector (LMS) in Palimbang, Sultan Kudarat to execute the

subdivision survey referred to as Gss-12-00003729. The survey

was conducted from October 10 to December 28, 1990. It was

however met with “some technical problems and adverse claims

made by other persons”30 and was not completed. The adverse

claims were settled by Engr. Cipriano B. Catudan, then PENRO

of Sultan Kudarat and other personnel. The settlement was

reached thru a series of dialogues and negotiations.

The survey was resumed three years later by CENRO Ta-

curong’s Acting Chief of Survey Unit Elias D. Domider. Under

the supervision of Sultan Kudarat PENRO Engr. Catudan, the

survey which later was referred to as Gss-12-000064 was started

January 04, 1993 and successfully completed on September 30,

1993. Its results were verifi ed by CENRO-Tacurong person-

nel Geroncio S. Sumogod, Special Investigator I and Macalaba

Hadjitaib, Deputy Public Land Inspector. In their report dated

October 08, 1993, the investigators recommended the adaption

of the survey results. Among the cited bases were the following

fi ndings: 1) the survey-claimants were on their actual possession

and occupation, and the same claimants made therein develop-

ments including, among others, crops planted and permanent

structures such as residential houses, rice mills and bodegas;

and, 2) the entry of the actual occupants over the subject lots

was in good faith thru their predecessor-in-interest.

On October 12, 1993, CENRO of Tacurong Abraham D. Lo-

minog submitted for approval the completed survey returns to

the Regional Technical Director of the DENR XII.31 The survey

contained some 312 hectares subdivided into a total of 161 lots

with corresponding claimant-occupants located on the premises

of Lot 26 of SWO 17260. Documents submitted included, among

others, a List of Claimants, each with lots surveyed and identi-

fi ed correspondingly in the Subdivision Plan. The list also bears

corresponding claimant Free Patent Application (FPA) refer-

ence. On October 13, Engr. Catudan submitted the same set of

survey returns to RTD DENR XII.32

On October 18, 2006, Manuel D. Gerochi, DENR’s Under-

secretary for Lands, wrote to Rakman Talipasan, saying that he

issued a memorandum to DENR XII’s RED to address Rakman’s

complaints against the DENR actions.

In compliance with Gerochi’s directive, the CENRO Ta-

curong O5 cer-in-Charge Jerry B. Dalauta created a Technical

Working Group on February 21, 2007. He picked the following

CENRO personnel to the TWG: David C. Ines, Chief, Land Ad-

ministration Unit as Team Leader; Julius Cesar Y. Tugade, Chief

Investigation Unit; Rogie D. Hagoriles, Chief Survey Unit; Mon-

taniel Salip, Al Haj, public lands investigator; and Kayao B. Hadji

Taha, public lands investigator. Their mission was to conduct an

exhaustive verifi cation and investigation of the issues lodged by

Rakman Talipasan, specifi cally on:

1. The facts that led to the issuance of decision dated Janu-

ary 4, 1988

2. The process of conducting the subdivision surveys up

to its approval, including the entries to the list of Survey

Claimants as approved

3. The process of accepting public land applications up to

issuance of their individual patents



The TWG returned fi ndings in a report they submitted to the

CENRO on March 03, 2007. These fi ndings were:

1. Land under consideration had already been disposed of

in favor of various claimants who are actually residing

in and cultivating the area, and who have successfully

substantiated their rights pursuant with the require-

ments set forth under CA 141, as amended, and that about

95% of them have already obtained patent covering their

respective portions

2. All the actions rendered emanated from Resolution

No. 254 of the then Batasang Pambansa; thus, action

rendered by then District Land O0 cer (now PENRO)

based on mandate under R.A. 6516, were neither “sur-

plusage and void ab initio (to be treated as invalid from

the outset) vitiated by lack or excess of jurisdiction” as

the plainti6 in the complaint substantially charged; it

is within the bounds of existing laws and subsequent

laws, rules, regulations and standing instructions relat-

ing to public land disposition, a matter falling within the

exclusive jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands (now Land

Management Bureau)

3. That the main principle pursued by DENR action: “for

the sake of social justice, to avoid agrarian unrest and

to dispel the notion that the law grinds the faces of the

poor, the o0 ce fi nds ways and means for the accommo-

dation of some of the actual occupants aside from the

listed petitioners who were landless and actual tillers

and who found it di0 cult to make both ends meet and

su6 ering privation of the universal struggle of existence

whom in the words of the late President Ramon Magsay-

say deserved a little more food in their stomachs, a little

more shelter over their heads, and a little more clothing

on their backs”

4. Ocular inspection conducted “a0 rms the indisputable

and incovertible rights of the occupants whose claim

were long ago been completed, vested and must, hence,

be respected and accorded with the fullest protection of

the law. Furthermore, several portions thereof are also

occupied by the government, to the exclusion of Datu

Talipasan or his representative neither of whom have sub-

stantiated their claim thereon in any manner whatsoever”

The report of the TWG is yet to be forwarded to the regional

o0 ce.

Parties’ Perspectives on their Land Rights

The Talipasan Heirs’ Perspective on their Land Rights

The heirs of Datu Talipasan Impao assert rightful ownership

of land commenced upon the approval of technical description

found on the survey instrument. With that instrument, owner-

ship takes on legal entity, without which there is no proof of

ownership. Nasser, one of the heirs’ designated representatives

said that his “grandfather had been long in possession of land

prior to World War II until barangay government in Impao was

organized. When political subdivisions were set after WWII,

his son, Datu Sanggutin Talipasan became Punong Barangay of

Impao. Datu Sanggutin resided in Impao. His residence is where

the barangay hall is located. The fact that Datu Talipasan Impao

had land surveyed is evidence of his intent to have it titled. Some



people suspect that a title was issued but lost in Manila. His

other landholdings are titled.”33

The land claim as evidenced by lot assignment in a legiti-

mate government survey plan was not cancelled. According

to the heirs, no one has the authority to cancel the property of

the State or private property without legal proceeding.34 Their

departure did not extinguish those rights either; hence they are

entitled to recover claimed lands. In recovering these lands, the

heirs prefer that settlers give back their land peacefully or else

they su( er punishment from Allah. “Don’t be like those who

seek trouble, be thankful you are in our land because we are not

oppressive people unlike other Muslims. Even if they are our

tenants, we do not take their poultry or other animals. For us,

you make a living here, send your children to school because

you will not be here all throughout your lives because there are

plenty of us heirs. My grandfather’s land is not enough to divide

among us.”

The heirs however acknowledge the development intro-

duced by the Christian settlers. According to Nasser: “Settlers

developed the land, no question about this. Hence, they must be

compensated for their e( orts. In conscience, I acknowledge it is

their right to be compensated.”

Originally, the Moro families continually claim that they do

not consider the Ilonggo families as their enemy. They did not

suspect their Christian neighbors to have done the burning (of

their houses), although they believe that the burning was done

in order to prevent the Muslims from coming back.

Lately the heirs began to piece together what to them were

facts based on the documents in their possession, oral accounts

from their older relatives and their own personal experience

with the current barangay o. cials in Barangay Impao. These

experiences include the incident in March 2007 when they

attempted to help Datu Sanggutin return to his former lot in

Barangay Impao. With these, they started believe that Antonio

Lozada was in connivance with the lawyers and DENR person-

nel. In an interview with one of the heirs, he cited the following

as evidence of manipulation:

• Lozada stood to gain the greatest there; he also initiated

installation of people in the area;

• Bureau of Lands tampered the name of Datu Talipasan

Impao to Caram Development Corporation which is a

ghost corporation. We didn’t know anything about Car-

am. It is a dummy corporation which probably belongs to

the group of the Lozadas in Negros;

• The decision was handed down when we were in the

evacuation area;

The same heir said that they also received word from some

Christian residents of the barangay who said that they did not

have interest in the lands of his grandfather. But the large por-

tions of his (Datu Talipasan) that he had not sold are occupied by

Tony (Lozada). If you want proof, you can have these surveyed.

He also pitied some Christians were victims of sweet talk, having

been convinced that fabricated papers were authentic and there

are no claimants.”35

If the heirs consider the Christian settlers as partly victims of

deception, this is because they hold the DENR, especially some



personnel of the Bureau of Lands, responsible for dispossessing

them of their grandfather’s land. They believe the DENR be-

trayed them in favor of Christian settlers when it was tasked to

distribute the land after the cancellation of land award to Caram

Development Corporation in 1988. They believe they are the

recipients because Bagua Mama was their uncle and the party

litigant in whose favor the DENR decided with regard to his and

33 others’ petition against the sales application of Caram. Even

if the decision was to their favor, no land was awarded to them.

They know that under “DENR Administrative Rules, non-party

litigants have no room for the availment of the fruit of the deci-

sion. Nowhere in the law is it provided that you can give it to

non-original owners.36

They accuse DENR of subdividing land to actual occupants

to the total disregard the petitioners whose favor it was decided.

They also accuse DENR of intentionally withholding informa-

tion about the decision made in 1988 which copy they had to

personally secure in Manila. The Bureau of Lands maneuvered

land awards to Christians even if they knew the Muslims were

original claimants and were in evacuation at the time of distri-

bution. They suspect these maneuvering led to the kidnapping

of Engr. Catudan and his wife and to their subsequent fl eeing to

the US to avoid confl icts.

They have taken DENR to task in resolving the dispute in

a barrage of complaints fi led before the regional and national

o- ces. They expect Government will resolve confl ict since it

is bound to protect property of citizens as parens patriae.37 But

they are dismayed over how the DENR had been handling their

complaints. They feel that the current actions being undertaken

especially by the DENR Tacurong O- ce are insu- cient if not

downright stupid. They question the composition of a technical

working group formed to look into their concerns, as incapable

of coming up with objective and truthful fi ndings for the simple

reason that some of these were, having been personally involved

in the anomalous distribution of their land, named respondents

in one of their complaints.

Finally, in the midst of their current e/ orts to recover land,

they are concerned their relatives who belong to the landed and

politically infl uential sector would intervene in their favor. They

fear intervention might be violent, as these relatives are wont to.

Settlers’ Perspective on their Land Rights

The settlers (mostly Christians) who benefi ted from the deci-

sion of the DENR to distribute land identifi ed as Lot 26 Swo

17260 claim themselves as legal owners. They base this claim

on several pieces of evidence, the chief of which is the posses-

sion of the land titles given by Government. They acquired land

titles after undergoing a process administered by the DENR who

required them to present proof legitimate claim such as deed or

receipt of sale, length of occupation and tax declaration. If they

have not acquired land titles, they base their ownership on land

rights claim for which they pay real taxes and their length of

actual occupation which for most of them is at least 20 years.

Because of the number of years of stay, they have taken root

and their children (the fi rst generation of whom are at least 30

years old) consider themselves “natives” having been born in

the area. Furthermore, they are migrant settlers, have called the

area as their home and have very little ties, if any, with their rela-



tives in Visayas or Luzon. They have raised their families on the

income from the land. They have developed deep attachment to

land they acquired in good faith and hard work.

While they admit the Moros claimed ownership of the area,

they acquired these lands from them through sale or mortgage.

They did so without intimidation or violating seller rights. For

most of them, land ownership changed hands, the legitimacy

of which has not been challenged as far as they can remember.

While they acknowledge the Moros as inhabitants of the area

before them, the land were classifi ed as Public Land and as such

may be titled to qualifi ed actual occupants.

Settlers believe it is their obligation is to protect land they

legally acquired, have invested, developed and for many of them,

the only source of income from for their families. For them,

blood will fl ow if someone will take it away, even if it is a govern-

ment program.

For the settlers, the Moros are their brothers and sisters.

When they arrived in Impao, they experienced Moro generosity

and accommodation which became the foundation of their har-

monious relationship. They looked up to them with respect as

original inhabitants and had been careful to maintain goodwill.

They recognized the dominance of the Moros and subscribed to

Datu Sanggutin as their leader. For many, Datu Sanggutin was

a legitimizer of land-related transactions taking place between

the settlers and the Moros.

The succeeding years of hard work a& orded economic uplift-

ment for some settlers. For some settlers, the tables have some-

how turned with regards to their relationship with the Moros. If

at the start they were at the receiving end of benevolence, in the

last thirty years they have returned the favor and have somehow

turned the table around, now extending assistance to whenever

their Moro brothers and sisters are in need. The settlers pro-

vided protection for the Moros during the Ilaga wars. They also

attempted to persuade them to return to the barangay when it

was relatively peaceful already. Finally, the settlers accommo-

dated requests of additional payment for the lands they have

either sold or mortgaged.

When some Moros attempted to occupy a lot owned by the

barangay government, the settlers maintained a calm demeanor

in approaching the Moros and in talking with them at the

Mayor’s O( ce. They believe in diplomacy in resolving disputes.

They also believe the same goes for Moros.

Similarities and Di! erences in Storylines

As far as the Moros are concerned, the confl ict situation would

have been avoided if the DENR handled, based on the principles

of parens patriae, the distribution of land (Lot 26, Swo 17260)

previously awarded to Caram. It is known to the DENR that the

descendants of Datu Talipasan were the orginal claimants, that

there were descendants of Datu Talipasan who was the original

claimant. In fact, the DENR order to distribute Lot 26 was a de-

cision in favor of a petition fi led by Talipasan’s son, Bagua Mama

(Datu Sanggutin) to whom land should have been awarded. It

would not also be unknown to DENR, upon investigation to

fi nd no descendants were actual occupants because these were

forced out of the claimed land by the war. Hence, for the Moros,

the DENR is accountable for the mishandling the distribution.



On the other hand, as far as the Christian settlers are concerned,

the DENR acted in accordance to procedures set by law. When

they were found to be actual occupants of Caram lands, Chris-

tian settlers supported their occupation with proof that their

respective lands were all purchased from the descendants of

the original claimants, and that most of sales transactions were

completed even before the claimants’ departure. In addition,

actual occupants included some Muslims who did not sell their

rights to occupied lots.

As to land claims, both Moros and settlers assert legal owner-

ship over the disputed tract of land. Their claims are backed by

a common basis: the law. The Moros maintain that a technical

description named after Datu Talipasan Impao changes status

of land from public to private property. Furthermore, the survey

that assigned a lot for Datu Talipasan cannot be cancelled with-

out court proceeding. On the other hand, the Christian settlers

base their legal ownership either by a patent on which their

names appear or by a real property tax declaration. The acquisi-

tion of patent underwent a process by which legitimate proof of

ownership was a required supporting document. Both Moro and

Christian settlers believe they have had satisfactorily substanti-

ated their claims by open, continuous and notorious occupation.

As to the manner of land rights changing hands, the settlers

contend that these deals were closed without intimidation and

violation of the rights of the Moros. The lots they occupy were

bought from legitimate owners. These owners were either origi-

nal Moro or someone to whom original Moro owners sold land.

And that sales transactions were attested to and approved by

Datu Sanggutin. They o& er as proof to these the fact that before

the incident in March 2007, there had been no instance where

Moros appearing at the scene and claiming ownership of lands.

Though transactions of sale are not brought out voluntarily by

the Moros, they tend to honor such transactions. At one point

of on-site interview, one of the Talipasan elders shared he had

voluntarily sold his land (not in Barangay Impao) to survive in

the evacuation center. His evacuation days had ended and he

had returned to Isulan without trying to recover land. But he

was hopeful the settler would “have mercy” and share some of

the land he had once given up.



STORY 2A Land Dispute between Moro Ancestral Land’s Claimants and a Christian Settler in Barangay Rangeban,

Midsayap, Cotabato

Background

Barangay Rangeban in Midsayap, North Cotabato has been an

arena of violent confl icts that saw displacements of civilians and

scores of killings since the 1970s. The incidents of violence stem

from a land dispute between several Maguindanaon clans and a

group of settlers who had been grantees of homestead patents

in the 1930s. The Maguindanaoans claim that the homestead

patents issued to settlers were fraudulent and arbitrarily issued

by the government without due regard to their ownership and

prior occupation. The settlers, on the other hand, assert that

they are the legal and rightful owners based on documents

alleging ownership.

Barangay Rangeban is one of six barangays in Midsayap that

declared their areas as “sanctuaries of peace” or the NATU-

LARAN MU Peace Zone. NATULARAN MU stands for the fi rst

letters of the six barangays, namely: Nabalawag, Tugal, Lower

Giad, Rangaban Nes and Mudseng. The peace zone was estab-

lished in 2005 following a shooting incident stemming from the

land confl icts in the area and which resulted to massive evacu-

ations. To help defuse the confl ict and prevent the escalation of

these armed hostilities, the NATULARAN MU Peace Council

initiated and hosted a peace dialogue where land confl ict was

identifi ed as the root cause of the hostilities38.

On January 25 to 27, 2007, tensions over the disputed land

again led to an outbreak of violence involving an armed para-

military group called the “Bantay Bayan” and members of the

Moro Islamic Liberation Front39 that escalated into wide-scale

confl ict.40 They were drawn to the confl ict because some MILF

members belonging to the Maguindanaoan clans were involved

in the confl ict while the Bantay Bayan members are themselves

farm workers employed by the settler owners. The violence

triggered the evacuation of around 6,000 people. Tensions were

only di3 used with the intervention of the International Moni-

toring Team, Joint Committee on the Cessation of Hostilities

(CCCH) of the government and MILF peace panels, and the

Bantay Ceasefi re. The CCCH established a Joint Monitoring

and Assistance Team (JMAT) in Barangay Rangeban41.

On February 28, 2007, the O6 ce of the Presidential Adviser

on the Peace Process under then Hon. Secretary Jesus G. Dureza

issued a Memorandum Order constituting an Inter-Agency Task

Force (IATF) to resolve the land disputes in Midsayap, specifi -

cally Barangays Rangeban and Mudseng. This was supported

by Executive Order 174 issued by President Gloria Macapagal

Arroyo on March 27, 200742.

The Inter-Agency Task Force, headed by the Department of

Environment and Natural Resources Region XII, conducted an



inventory and survey on the disputed lots. Sources of informa-

tion were the DENR Land Management Sector (LMS) Allocation

Book and the Tax Map of the Municipal Assessor’s O& ce of Mid-

sayap. Through the comparative inventory done by the IATF, it

was found that out of the 175 lots in Brgy Rangaban (inclusive of

two roads lots), 90 lots were in confl ict.

Their fi ndings, shown in Table 8, indicate that the Maguin-

danaoan Lanson clan claims ownership over 152 lots in Ba-

rangays Rangeban and Mudseng, 10 of which were patented to

Christian settlers in Barangay Rangeban.

This case study examines the dynamics of confl ict between the

Maguindanaoan clans Lanson and Panansang and a settler, Mateo

Parcon, disputing over a 24-hectare parcel of homestead lot iden-

tifi ed as Lot No. 317, Pls 714. Parcon, who is title holder of Lot No.

316, also claims ownership over Lot No. 317 which is covered by

Homestead Application No. 191962 (E-106327) issued under the

name of David Escarola. (There was no homestead patent issued.)

Parcon claims that he bought the lot from one Antonio Diaz who

in turn allegedly bought it from the heirs of David Escarola.

Mamasalalang Panansang, a relative of the Lansons, was

the intervenor in a petition for cancellation of the homestead

application covering Lot 317. The petition was fi led by Sumang-

kang Lanson in 1986 against David Escarola. Lanson later died

but Panansang alleged that Engken Lanson, the only surviving

heir of Sumangakang Lanson, executed a quitclaim in favor of the

heirs of Tipas Panansang, the father of Mamasalalang Panansang.

On August 20, 2004, the DENR Region XII decided in favor

of Mamasalalang Panansang canceling the homestead appli-

cation of Escarola on grounds that no Escarola folder could

be found, although the allocation book shows that Lot No.

317, Pls-704 is covered by Homestead Application No. 191962

(E-106327) of David Escarola with Order issuance of patent

on April 2, 1937. Escarola, according to the order, also failed to

show up during investigations.

The DENR also ordered Panansang to fi le the appropriate

public land application on grounds of open, continuous, ex-

clusive possession since 1946 in a concept of a bonafi de claim

of ownership, interrupted only by the Ilaga-Muslim confl ict.

It also dismissed an appeal fi led by Parcon who, in turn, fi led

administrative and criminal charges against DENR Director Jim

Sampulna for violation of RA 3019, the “Anti-Graft Law.” Parcon

alleged that Sampulna’s decision was tainted with manifest par-

tiality and gross negligence.

Lot No Area (ha) Claimants Title Holders

222 14 Musilba Unos Esperidion Jaban

223 20 Sugalao Andoy Lorenzo Vinican

306 Samama Talusob Lupo Faranal

309 Sambitol Palacad Gregorio Orendain

312 Montawal Olimpain Baltazar Malaga

315 Salik Manial Felimon Mallorca

316 Blah Palangalan Mateo Parcon

317 20 Mamasalalang Panansang David Escarola

318 Talusob Balangilan Teofi lo Mallorca

671 Gamotan Lanson Uni Flauta

Table 8Lots in Barangay Rangeban Patented to Christian Settlers

SOURCE: Inter-Agency Task Force/OPAPP



The Parties

Lanson-Panansang Clan43

The Lansons and Panansangs are among 37 Moro families who

are descendants of Datu Lanson Timan, a Maguindanaoan datu

who ruled in the 1880s over lands now situated in 3,000 hectares

covering two barangays Rangeban and Mudsen, and sitio Suluk

in Midsayap, North Cotabato.

Datu Lanson Timan had eight children, two of whom were

Engken and Makadali. Engken’s children are Sumangkang and

Abdulrakman Lanson, the clan’s designated spokesperson.

Makadali’s son is Gardoke Lanson, the current barangay chair of

Rangeban. Datu Lanson had a sister named Sambitukan Timan

whose daughter, Sulaiba Ulugan, was married to Tipas Panansang.

The case’s protest-intervenor on record is Mamasalalan Pan-

ansang, son of Sulaiba and Tipas. The Lanson-Panansang clan

claims that the land now under the scope of Lot 317 was given

by Datu Lanson Timan to Tipas Panansang. It was Sumangkang

Lanson who fi led the protest in 1986 in behalf of Mamasalalan

Panansang because at that time they evacuated to another place.

The other members of the Lanson clan own other lots in Barangay

Rangeban. Abdulrakman’s family owns Lots 361 and 362 totaling

around 24 hectares. Gardoke Lanson’s family owns Lots 365 and

366 that have a combined area of about 40 hectares. Lot 318 is

owned by Paidumama Matanog, who is an uncle of the Lansons.

Lot 224 is owned by the Sugod clan while Lot 669 is owned by Ma-

malangkay Gumaga. All are descendants of Datu Lanson Timan.

Although the lots of Abdulrakman Lanson and Gardoke

Lanson are not the subject of any litigation, they were drawn

in the confl ict, according to them, because the Panansangs are

their relatives and even if it concerns only Lot 317, everyone is

a1 ected when violence erupts.

Mateo Parcon

Mateo Parcon is the present occupant/owner of Lot 317, Pls 704.

An Ilonggo who came to Mindanao when he was 20 years old,

Parcon purchased the lot from Antonio Diaz on May 5, 1985 who

in turn bought it from the heirs of David Escarola, the holder of

the homestead patent covering Lot 317. He brought in several

tenants to work in the whole area.


Chronology of Events according to the Lanson-Panansang

Abdulrakman Lanson, the designated spokesperson of the clan,

submitted a written account accompanying his narration. He

began his narrative by saying that Balangay Langban, now called

Barangay Rangeban, is the ancestral domain of their family.

Their grandfather, Datu Lanson G. Timan, used to rule over

Langban. They claimed that their ancestral lands were titled

under the names of people who have never lived in Rangeban by

settlers who started arriving in the 1930s. When they arrived in

Langban, they carried with them land titles but Adbulrakman

insist that they are mere speculators, as upon closer inspection,

the titles do not bear lot numbers. These properties, he wrote in

his narrative, “pertain to properties falling under Public Land

Act Number 2874 – provided for the manner of acquiring land



ownership through the Torrens system (land titling); known as

Dulawan Cadastral Survey Number 107, Cadastral Case Number

24, G.L.RO., Cadastral Record Number 598, acquired from 1919,

1920’s, 1930’s, to 1950’s.”

In 1957, their elders discovered this fact and so fi led a petition

for the annulment of the fraudulent titles which the govern-

ment granted in 1958 thereby establishing Public Land Survey

No. 704, Case 1. Unfortunately, they could not produce a copy of

the said petition. From April 20 to June 10, 1961, their “ancestral

lots” were surveyed and subdivided in favor of the 37 clans un-

der the governsorhip of Datu Udtog Matalam. In their written

narrative account, he outlined their legal arguments against the

settlers as follows:

There is a defi nite and well-defi ned boundary line

between Public Land Act Number 2874 or Dulawan

Cadastral Survey Number 107 and Public Land

Survey Number 704, Case-1.

Therefore, the settlers/Christians title holders

should look for their properties within Dulawan

Cadastral Survey Number 107 and not inside Public

Land Survey Number 704, Case-1.

Incidentally, when the Ancestral Domain Claim/

Ownership of my late grandfather Lanson G. Timan

was surveyed and subdivided into ancestral lots in

favor of 37 clans (relatives of Lanson) of Balangay

Langban, Midsayap, Cotabato under Public Land

Survey Number 704, Case-1 on April 20 to June

10, 1961, the settlers or Christian claimants never

objected to the survey which could mean that their

properties were not being traversed by the said

Public Land Survey.

These settlers/Christian land claimants, not

having occupied the properties for which they were

purportedly issued land titles, do not even know the

exact locations of their properties due to the fact that

they have never been in our “home land” since time

immemorial.

The stand of the Bangsamoro people (native inhabitants)

of Balangay Langban therefore is that even with supposed

land titles, the settlers/Christians did not acquire the property

because they did not comply with the Public Land Act (Pls 704),

which was established by the Philippine Government in 1958.

What they complied with was Cadastral Survey 107, which was

annulled that same year.

Lanson asserted that homestead patents issued under

Dulawan Cadastral Survey 107 under Public Land Act 2874 are

therefore null and void.

The Lansons claimed that in the years 1970 to 1971, “the

Bangsamoro people, native inhabitants of Langban, were treated

as foreigners of our “Home Land,” and they were victimized

by the claimants through “deceit, fraud, stealth, force, threats,

intimidation and massacres.”



Because of these, they were forced to abandon their ancestral

lots in 1971. “During our absence, the claimants occupied the

abandoned lots under the guise and pretense of being the lawful

owners of the land based upon their patents which they obtained

through a purportedly approved homestead plans as early as 1919

to 1950s or thereabouts. The native inhabitants who are con-

sidered as fi rst people of Langban, Midsayap, Cotabato felt too

disgruntled as [to] the e- ect of titling their ancestral lands,” the

Lansons said through their narrative account. “The concerned

Bangsamoro people (native inhabitants) of Balangay Langban,

Midsayap, Cotabato naturally resented the illegal intrusions of

claimants which was probably misinterpreted by the government

as an act of cessation from the Republic of the Philippines.”

In 1978, the Lansons were able to return to the area but they

were not able to recover a good portion of their land as these

were already occupied by Christian settlers. Some of the areas,

however, were recovered. On February 28, 1981, a protest was

fi led by Sumangkang Lanson against the homestead application

of Davil Escarola. On May 19, 1986, Mamasalalan Panansang

fi led his intervention to the case alleging that his late father

Tipas Panansang had been in open, continuous, exclusive,

notorious possession and occupation of the said lot since 1946

in a concept of a bonafi de claim of ownership interrupted only

during the Ilaga-Muslim confl ict in the 1970s. It was Sumang-

kang Lanson who fi led the protest in 1986 because at that time,

Mamasalalan Panansang and his family evacuated to another

area. There was also an agreement between their fathers, Eng-

ken Lanson and Tipas Panansang, that the Lansons return Lot

317 to the Panansangs.

On February 2, 1989, an evacuation of both Bangsamoro

farmers and Christians from their farm holdings in Balangay

Langban occurred on account of “gross bad faith” of one Rodrigo

Sorongon and his cohorts in refusing to honor their written

agreement with Kamlon Montawal. Montawal, a relative of the

Lansons, mortgaged the land to Sorongon who refused to return

the three hectares farmholding of the latter despite the lapse of

one cropping season on December 1988, a supposed violation of

the agreement.

Confl ict started when Sorongon hired soldiers who managed

to have the 35th Infantry Battalion of the Philippine Army con-

duct operations over the disputed areas on the pretext that they

were pursuing Bangsamoro rebels. But the Lansons insist that

the operations were in reality intended to “eject the weak and

defenseless Bangsamoro people out of their respective ances-

tral lands.” They said that during the operations, their houses,

including the house of Mamasalalan Panansang on Lot No. 317,

were burned to ashes. They accused Sorongon to be behind this

“lawlessness and brutality.”

“Besmirching of our mosque and Madrasah, butch-

ering of dogs inside our Mosque, destruction of our

Mosque, and fi nally, taking the roofs (galvanized iron)

of our mosque were tremendous violations against

the rights of the Bangsamoro peoples (native inhabi-

tants) of Balangay Langban, Midsayap Cotabato. The

burned houses, deprived chances of cultivating of our

ancestral lands for a very long period of time in an

invulnerable misery on the part of the Bangsamoro

people (native inhabitants) of Balangay Langban,



Midsayap, Cotabato. However, the people of Langban

plead… for just response of the law.”

Lintang Kusa, also a relative of the Lansons, recalled that

there were more than 30 houses burned in sitio Tabubok in

1989. “The Christians saw that the Muslims were doing well in

their work. Perhaps that’s why they contacted the military to

conduct operations in Rangeban to help drive away Muslims. We

were gone for a year but by the time we came back, the Chris-

tians were already doing the work of the Muslims.”

In their written narrative, the Lanson and Panangsang clans

believed that Langban (now Rangeban) is their ancestral land,

their “homeland,” because their ancestors have lived there since

time immemorial. They cited as evidences the burial grounds

still existing, and consider themselves as the “fi rst people” of

Langban. They believe that they have the “right to live peaceful-

ly in their ancestral domain under a rule of justice and recipro-

cal equity which were emphasized in the framework of the Con-

stitution.” They asserted that among the bases of their rights to

the land is the fact that the 37 clans are the actual occupants of

the area. They claim that specifi cally on Lot 317, the homestead

patentee (referring to David Escarola) was “never in possession

of the land granted to him and was even directed to reconvey the

land to the true owners. “

“The reconveyance is just and proper in order to termi-

nate the intolerable anomaly that patentee should have

a Torrens title, for land which they and their predeces-

sor never possessed by the respondents in the concept

of owner,” they said in their written narrative. “Clearly

therefore, both from the standpoint of law and equity,

the claim of the Bangsamoro People (native inhabit-

ants) of Langban, Midsayap, Cotabato over the disput-

ed Bangsamoro properties stand on tierra fi rma or solid

ground, regardless of the numerical age of the supposed

land titles of the settlers or Christian claimants.”

Their obligation to the land, according to the Lansons, is to

“defend our rights to the land, to preserve it for the next genera-

tion.” Otherwise, their descendants will no longer have a place

of their own. Gardoke Lanson also said that they are obliged to

safeguard and ensure the recovery of their land with a clean title

so there will no longer be any confl ict in the next generation.44

On June 20, 2006, Abdulrakman said that they participated

in a dialogue with Christians in the presence of the Interna-

tional Monitoring Team from Brunei. The agreement during

the dialogue was that both parties must present evidence and

submit documents proving their ownership.

“Immediately, on that same day, we found out that our

opponents submitted a map with the Bureau of Lands

containing lot numbers. We also fi led our own maps.

But our question is: how come the lots they are holding

contain our lot numbers? When we scrutinized the map

of the opponents, we discovered discrepancies such as

the designation of Barangay Rangeban, Midsayap as

part of Maguindanao, Autonomous Region of Muslim

Mindanao. So although all lots of Barangay Rangeban

are found in their maps, I told the Chief of Bureau of

Lands/CENRO in Midsayap, that we would not allow



the proposed 350 hectares to be awarded to them, we

will not o% er. Why? Because this is part and parcel of

the ancestral domain of the Moro people of Rangeban.

You better send them to Maguindanao province be-

cause the map says Maguindanao in ARMM. Barangay

Rangeban is part of the province of North Cotabato.”

On January 25 to 28, 2007, fi ghting erupted between the

MILF and the armed CVOs, the Bantay Bayan, resulting to the

evacuation of around 6,000 people, the violence stemming

from the on-going land confl icts in Barangay Rangeban. Some

MILF members happened to be relatives of the Maguindanao

claimants to the questioned lots. Gardoke cited for example

the case of Mamasalalan Panansang whose brothers are MILF

members. The Bantay Bayan members are also the farm workers

of Christian land owners in Barangay Rangeban who carry with

them fi rearms while tending to the fi eld.

Gardoke also narrated that he himself was dragged into

the confl ict when he tried to talk to the Bantay Bayan and was

instead shot by some of their members. Later, a criminal case

of frustrated murder was charged against him, forcing him to

hide. “I went to the area to talk to the Bantay Bayan members to

convince them that the problem can not be solved through force

but through dialogue. While there, someone shot me from the left

so I jumped into an irrigation canal.”

Because of the DENR order in 2005 awarding Lot 317 to the

Panansangs, the latter wanted to occupy the land which was in

the possession of Mateo Parcon but his armed workers securing

the area refused.

“To my mind, that started the armed confl ict. Mus-

lims have guns. Christians have guns also. At fi rst, the

Armed Forces of the Philippines was not involved yet.

But when the violence escalated, the AFP intervened.

That’s when the confl ict later became an armed con-

frontation between the MILF and the AFP.”

The armed confl ict was only di0 used upon the intervention

of the Coordinating Committee on the Cessation of Hostilities

(CCCH) of both the GRP and MILF peace panels, the IMT and

other groups. A Joint Monitoring Action Team (JMAT) was set

up in the area to help mediate the confl ict between the MILF

and the AFP.

On February 28, 2007, the O3 ce of the Presidential Adviser

on the Peace Process under then Hon. Secretary Jesus G. Dureza

issued a Memorandum Order constituting an Inter-Agency Task

Force (IATF) to resolve the land disputes in Barangays Range-

ban and Mudseng. This was supported by Executive Order 174

issued by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo on March 27, 2007.

The Task Force, headed by the Department of Environment

and Natural Resources Region XII, conducted an inventory and

survey on the disputed lots. Sources of information were the

DENR Land Management Sector (LMS) Allocation Book and the

Tax Map of the Municipal Assessor’s O3 ce of Midsayap.

In addition to the DENR XII, the Task Force was also com-

posed of the following: the O3 ce of the Presidential Adviser to

the Peace Process (OPAPP), the Local Government of Midsayap,

Department of Agrarian Reform, Philippine Army’s 6th Infantry



Division, the CCCH of both the GRP and MILF panels, Depart-

ment of Agriculture, the Philippine National Police -Midsayap,

Registry of Deeds, Public Attorney’s O$ ce, Integral Develop-

ment Services, and the Notre Dame of Midsayap College.

The Lansons learned about this when they attended meetings

convened by the Task Force in 2007. Key actions taken by the

Task Force was the conduct of a relocation survey, inspection of

monuments, inventory of claimants and actual occupants based

on the DENR Land Management Sector (LMS) Allocation Book

and the Tax Map of the Municipal Assessor’s O$ ce of Midsayap.

According to the Task Force, through the comparative inventory,

work, it was found out that the 175 lots in Barangay Rangeban

(inclusive of two roads lots), 90 lots or 51,43 were confl ict.45

The relocation survey was conducted May 2 to 22, 2007

by three DENR XII Survey Teams covering a total of 311 lots

equivalent to 1,994.3464 hectares. Boundary monuments were

also installed by the survey teams. The Lansons claimed that

although the relocation survey was conducted, the confl ict re-

mains unresolved because the lots were not awarded to the real

owners and there was no action to enforce the results of the sur-

vey. Many of the lots in Rangeban overlapped each other and the

relocation survey would have made the necessary adjustments46.

Chronology of Events according to Mateo Parcon

It was in 1985 when Mateo Parcon bought Lot 317 from Antonio

Diaz for P50,000. Antonio Diaz, in turn, bought the property

from the heirs of David Escarola who applied for a homestead

patent [H.A. no. 19-1962 (E-106327)] over Lot 317 on March 6,

1933 and approved on October 11, 1934. The patent was issued

on April 2, 1937.

“Wa-ay sang tawo da sang pag-umpisa namon. Puro kahoy kag

pawas ang erya. Adlaw-adlaw kami gakadto didto kag mangha-

wan kay ti lasang pa” (There was nobody there when we started

(farming). The whole area was marshy and full of trees. We used

to go there everyday to cut trees and weeds because it was prac-

tically a forest). After acquiring Lot 317, Parcon and his tenant

farmers developed the area into a productive and agriculturally-

sustainable wetland rice farm in Rangeban.

The confl ict in Rangeban was caused by people who got

interested in lands that were already cleared and developed by

the owners. When they learned that the land remains untitled, a

lawyer who is Maguindanaoan fi led cases for the cancellation of

homestead lots that were not yet titled. The lawyer then advised

his relatives to apply for homestead although these lands were

already occupied by settlers. What they also did was to “samo-

kon ang Christians” (give trouble to Christians) so they will be

forced to leave. He believed that the real motivation behind the

fi ling of cases was really to make money.

He claimed to have gotten a letter purportedly written by the

lawyer addressed to a commander named Dante. He kept a copy

of that letter dated January 8, 1987 where the lawyer informed

Dante that about eight lot numbers including lot 317 in Mud-

seng, Midsayap, Cotabato are “all without patent and are being

protested by my clients.” The lawyer also wrote in that purport-

ed letter that he shall have a share in all these eight parcels of

land and he is authorizing his uncle, Mr. Pananggaln Magelna, to

take possession and cultivate all his shares in these lands. He is

then requesting “Comdr. Dante” to help his uncle so that he can

peacefully enter his 40 percent shares in all these lots.



Parcon believed that the lawyer is the “brains behind” all

these claims being fi led on already occupied but untitled lands.

But because the cases they fi led lack evidence, these were dis-

missed by the Regional Trial Court of Midsayap.

Parcon’s right to ownership over Lot No. 317 is a deed of sale

between him and Antonio Diaz who, in turn, had a deed of sale

with the heirs of David Escarola, the homestead patentee. He

said that upon his payment of P50, 000 to Diaz, he immediately

took over the property. He has also been paying the taxes ever

since he bought the property and even at the time of sale as there

could be no government transaction without payment of taxes.

In his record also are o- cial receipts of taxes paid by David Esca-

rola since 1937. Escarola, he said, complied with all the govern-

ment requirements for a homestead application. “How come it

would happen that after we complied with all the requirements,

suddenly we are being told that we do not have a right over the

land?” he asked. As far as he is concerned, there is no need for

any action on his part because he believes that there is no actual

confl ict as the confl ict is on paper only. They just made it up that

there is confl ict. “In fact the court had certifi ed that my land does

not have any pending confl ict,” he said, showing a certifi cation

dated June 19, 1987 and issued by the Regional Trial Court, 12th

Judicial Region, Branch 18, Midsayap, Cotabato. It states that

Lot 317 “under the name of David Escarola is not involved in any

pending civil and/or ordinary land registration case.”

Asked about the incidents of violence that were reported in

Rangeban, Parcon said that those were e4 ects of the confl ict

over land between some tenants and residents in the area who

have relatives with MILF rebels. They instigate these incidents,

according to him, in order to drive away the Christians so they

could take over. It is unfortunate, he said, that although the

Christians have complete documents, they are being harassed so

they will be forced to leave the area. He alleged that the brother

of the barangay captain of Rangeban is an MILF leader whose

name is “Commander Manda Lanson”.

The problem can only be solved by the Bureau of Lands, ac-

cording to Mateo Parcon. The Bureau should also be neutral, fair

and not side with anyone. Everyone should also abide by the de-

cision of the Bureau. Those lands were already given by the gov-

ernment through the Bureau of Lands, and therefore it should

be the Bureau which should address the problem. There should

be no politics involved and other sectors should not intervene.

For Parcon, it is the homestead policy of the government

that is central to the resolution of the confl ict. One applies for a

homestead patent before the Bureau of Lands and it is awarded

only when all the requirements are complied with that includes

occupation and cultivation of the land and payment of taxes.

Since it is the Bureau of Lands that awards homestead patents, it

should also be the sole o- ce that should resolve problems arising

from a homestead. If it were only up to the Bureau of Lands, the

problem would have been solved. A homestead patent is awarded

by the government which means that all requirements had been

met. The owner then cultivates the place and pays taxes such as

in the case of Escarola, who had been paying taxes since 1937. In

his experience, one could suddenly fi nd out that the property

is not his because one has lost in a court case. Worse of all, one

doesn’t even know what case it was that one lost.



Many homestead patents were issued to settlers from Luzon

and Visayas. Parcon said the settlers were brought in Mindanao

by the government itself. The settlers who arrived in Barangay

Rangeban were mostly Ilocanos and Ilonggos. “Even during

peace time, before the war, the government was already going to

Cebu to get people, Antiquenos and Ilocanos,” he said. Parcon,

an Ilonggo, came to Mindanao when he was 20 years old.

Had the laws been followed and enforced by the Bureau of

Lands, there would not have been any problem. But what hap-

pened, he said, was that the Bureau of Lands itself had caused

the trouble. The people and the Bureau of Lands itself did not

follow the laws of the government. This has made the confl ict

worse, leading to violence.

The right to ancestral domain was not a policy of the gov-

ernment when it lured settlers to go to Mindanao, according to

Parcon. “Otherwise, the government should have informed the

settlers not to buy lands that are part of the ancestral domain of

Muslims,” he said. “Then we, settlers, would have been warned

not to buy lands owned by Muslims, and we would not have

bought the land.” In fact, he said there was a Commission on

National Integration on the sale of lands between Christians and

Muslims. The problem here is that the Muslims themselves were

the ones who sold the lands to settlers. “Muslims also sell their

own lands without the knowledge of their family or relatives,”

he said. He could not understand he said why his land is being

disputed when in fact he got a court certifi cation in 1987 that

the property has no pending case (on ownership). The DENR

should instead tell settlers to apply for other lands that do not

have owners. The government should not also have encouraged

people from Luzon and Visayas to come here in Mindanao, he

stressed.

Some of the settlers sold their lands in their hometowns,

and when they arrived here, they were given lands. When they

were able to cultivate the land and made the land productive,

they would then be harassed. He cited a landowner in Alamada,

North Cotabato, who planted coconut trees on his land. After

seven years of developing the land, he said, and with the trees

now bearing fruits, suddenly there was a “confl ict” on his land

and he lost the case because he failed to perfect the processing

of his documents. A Muslim claimant on the land became the

owner, who eventually sold the property. The owner lost his

mind and went back to Luzon.

On the part of Parcon, the Bureau of Lands in Manila must

take action and the resolve the case with fi nality, and whatever

would be the decision of the Bureau of Lands should be abided

by the parties. The Bureau should be impartial and really check

who are the true owners and who are the squatters of the lots.

Recommendations of the Parties on the Resolution of

the Confl ict

Both parties pointed to the Bureau of Lands (Department of En-

vironment and Natural Resources) as the sole agency that could

resolve their dispute over ownership with fi nality. As far as the

Lanson and Panansang clans are concerned, they have already

won the case and therefore DENR XII should now execute the

decision. On the part of Parcon, the Bureau of Lands in Manila

must take action and the resolve the case with fi nality, and what-

ever would be the decision of the Bureau of Lands should be



abided by the parties. The Bureau should be impartial and really

check who exactly the owners and the squatters of the lots.

Postscript49

Based on the fi ndings of the Inter-Agency Task Force, a reloca-

tion survey was conducted from May 2 to 22, 2007 by three

survey teams of the DENR XII. A total of 311 lots equivalent to

1,994.3464 hectares were surveyed by the fi ve teams out of the

target of 1,500 hectares. Barangay Mudseng was less problema-

tic compared to Barangay Rangeban in the sense that only 19 out

of 87 lots or 21.84% of the number of lots were in confl ict.

The installation of the rightful owners to their respective lots

began as soon as survey and monumenting was accomplished

by the DENR surveyors. As of June 20, 2007, 90% and 60% of

the residents of Barangay Rangeban and Barangay Mudseng,

respectively have returned to their areas.

On July 19, 2007, about 28 farmers were awarded land titles

at Rangeban Elementary School. By August 2007, a hundred

percent of the total population has already returned in Baran-

gay Rangeban and 85 percent in BarangayMudseng. The DENR

XII, in partnership with the Registry of Deeds, is still processing

applicants for patents from Barangay Rangeban and Barangay

Mudseng.

The resolution of land confl ict in the two barangays was seen

as the key to a peaceful solution of the recurring armed con-

frontations in the area. It was agreed that issuance of titles to

lot areas with adverse claims will be pending until confl icts will

have been resolved. These contentious lots will be turned over

to the LGU-Midsayap and the NATULARAN MU Peace Council

for resolution. The DENR will process the title as soon as the

area is cleared of any confl ict as certifi ed by the NATULARAN

MU Peace Council and the IDS-Philippines.

Some recommendations that were being pushed by the IATF

are:

a. For unresolved cases, titling and reversion cases should

be fi led in court. For areas with no confl ict, the titling

process must continue.

b. The NATULARAN MU Peace Council should continu-

ously conduct dialogue and the JMAT/AFP to maintain

peace and order in the area.

c. The LGU of Midsayap and the AFP should work hand in

hand to foster a peaceful co-existence between Muslims

and Christians in the area.

d. Furthermore, the Government should invest more in

health, education, livelihood opportunities and infra-

structure development in the area.

e. Barangay Mudseng and Rangeban can be a show window

for the government to win back the hearts of the people

and that the administration is sincere in fi nding lasting

peace in Mindanao.



STORY 3A Land Confl ict Between a Christian Academic Institution and a Moro Family in Isulan, Sultan Kudarat

Background

This is a land confl ict between the heirs of a Moro named Akang

Simpal and an American Christian missionary’s family named

Barker over two parcels of land totaling 22,226 square meters

(2.2 hectares)50 located at the northeastern part of Isulan, Sul-

tan Kudarat. The lots are part of a piece of land where a Chris-

tian educational institution, King’s College (formerly, Kalawag

Institute) is standing, and used as playground and CMT (Citizen

Military Training)51 ground by the school. King’s College is a

subsidiary of the Philippine Evangelical Enterprises, Inc., a

private corporation.

The Moro clan claims the lots in question and even the

whole area where the school is standing now are all part of an

approximately 12-hectare ancestral landholdings owned by

Akang Simpal, donated to a Christian couple for the school site.

The College’s owners claim it was donated to it by a group of

Christian settlers who previously owned the school. While titles

were being applied for by the Barkers over the disputed land,

titles were obtained by the Akangs in 1996. The Akang siblings

subsequently obtained a bank loan on behalf of a third party,

using one of the titles on the land as collateral for mortgage.

The disputed land became the subject of a court case fi led by

the PEEI before the Regional Trial Court of Isulan. The RTC in

its ruling acknowledged the dubious nature of the titles issued

to the Akang heirs, owing to the fact that they were obtained on

the basis of forged documents. However, it dismissed the case

in favor of the Akang heirs, being the owners on record (despite

the dubious titles), on the basis that corporations, while allowed

to lease, cannot own public lands, and that PEEI has no stand-

ing for reversion52 of the titles obtained by the Akang heirs. This

case illustrates the manner with which government person-

nel and private individuals use Moros on supposed recovery of

ancestral landholdings, for rent-seeking activities and to obtain

loans using fraudulent documents. The case is now on appeal,

and is currently under a reversion case fi led by the Solicitor

General for cancellation of the fraudulent titles obtained.

The Parties

Heirs of Akang Simpal

The heirs of Akang Simpal are represented by Baikong Akang

Camsa (Bai Nelly). She and her siblings Hadji Abdullah, Ali

(married to Patao Talipasan), Kadil Lukaya, Tho, Kalima, Wahni,

and Mangelen claim to descend from one of the early families who

occupied wide tracts of land by Moro traditional landholding.

Bai Nelly is 48 years old. Among her siblings, she is the only

one who had studied, and even then did not fi nish high school.

She is an active member of the Bangsamoro Women Committee

of the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF). She was wife to

Datu Romeo Camsa (now deceased), State Chairman of the Se-

bangan State Revolutionary Committee of the MNLF. After the



signing of the Final Peace Agreement between the GRP and the

MNLF in 1996, she became the Chair of the Autonomous Tri-

People Central Kutawato Committee. As such, she had access to

projects granted to the Bangsamoro Women of the MNLF.

The Akang siblings allege that the present site of the King’s

College was donated in 1952 by their father to a Christian couple,

Gregorio and Anastacia Cerezo, for use of the then Kalawag

Institute, on the condition that all children and grandchildren of

the heirs of Akang Simpal will study for free at the Institute. In

1955, the Cerezos moved to General Santos City. Prior to their

move, they sold the land to a group of 22 Christians, represented

by Felipe Fernandez, a former member of the Board of Directors

of King’s College. Upon the Cerezos’ leaving, the school’s

administration was taken over by PEEI, headed by Rev. Gerald

Barker, Sr., who changed the name of the school into King’s

College. The Akangs claim that the close friendship shared by

their father with the Cerezos is part of the reason why the land

was donated to them. However, no child or grandchild of Akang

Simpal has benefi ted from the school as was originally agreed

with the Cerezos. They do not know the Barkers, and therefore

would like to reclaim their ancestral landholding.

Philippine Evangelical Enterprises, Inc (PEEI)

The PEEI is a private, non stock, non profi t educational corpora-

tion established in 1958. It was founded by Rev. Gerald Barker

(now 85 years old), an American Christian missionary who came

to Isulan in 1957. In 1958, PEEI assumed the management of

Kalawag Institute, and renamed the school King’s College.

His son, Jabe Barker, 47 years old, now represents PEEI.

Jabe was born in Malaybalay, Bukidnon, and is married to an

Ilocana from Marbel. His wife assumed management of the

school in 1998.

Jabe asserts that the land where the school is located

was originally among those under the administration of

LASEDECO53 which was later turned over to the Board of

Liquidators. The Board of Liquidators awarded the land to Mr.

and Mrs. Cerezo, who started the Kalawag Institute in 1952.

He asserts that in his research on the history of the school’s

property, he determined that the location of the land donated

by Akang Simpal to the Cerezos was somewhere in the vicinity

of the municipal site of Isulan, more than a kilometer away

from the school campus. He contends that it is impossible for

the school site to be the land donated by the Akang Simpal to

the Cerezos by virtue of the original technical description of

the donated land provided by Baikong Akang Camsa, which also

coincides with the sworn deposition of Mrs. Cerezo in which

she made it clear that the school site and the property donated

by Akang Simpal are completely di1 erent properties separated

by almost two kilometers. He expressed sympathies for Baikong

Akang Camsa for being used by personnel from the Department

of Environment and Natural Resources as well as personnel

from the PCI Bank in Isulan (now Banco de Oro) in claiming the

land owned by the school.



Other Stakeholders

Municipality of Isulan

According to court records, the Municipality of Isulan had

donated in 1961 a total of six hectares of land from the then

reserved government site to the Kalawag Institute54. These

two donations were covered by Municipal Council resolutions

passed in June and October that year. However, later on the

Municipality of Isulan changed its mind about the donations

and took them back, to enable the municipality to donate the

lands to the Province of Sultan Kudarat for the Sultan Kudarat

Provincial Hospital. (Today, the six hectares is the current site of

the Sultan Kudarat Provincial Hospital).

In exchange for the six hectares of land, the Municipality of

Isulan instead donated “a certain portion of the government

reserved site in another area, adjacent to Kalawag Institute”,

although the area is less than six hectares. This area donated in

exchange is now the subject disputed land adjacent to the Kala-

wag Institute and used by the school as its playground and CMT

ground. This donation was supported by a Municipal Resolution

No. 19 dated August 20, 1974. The former Mayor of Isulan, Con-

rado Buencamino, upon questioning under oath, testifi ed that

during his incumbency from 1968 until 1986, no claims were ever

fi led by any Muslim family covering the two lots in question.

Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Region

XII O" ce (DENR XII)

The lots in question are within the jurisdiction of the Board

of Liquidators, pursuant to Proclamation No 189 (June 1950)

which placed under the BOL’s jurisdiction “lands in Ampatuan,

Bagumbayan, Esperanza, Isulan, Mariano Marcos, and Tacurong

in Cotabato (now parts of Sultan Kudarat and Maguindanao

provinces) with a total area of 103,286 hectares. Previously,

however, it was LASEDECO, and later NARRA, who exercised

jurisdiction over the said lands, but with the abolition of LA-

SEDECO and NARRA, all their assets were transferred to the

Board of Liquidators for disposal. The BOL acts in coordination

with the DENR in the disposition and award of the disposable

public domain, pursuant with an Agreement between the

Bureau of Lands and BOL signed in 1973. Under this agreement,

no patents covering LASEDECO lots shall be issued unless certi-

fi ed by the Board of Liquidators.

According to the DENR, Gerald Barker Sr. fi led for a Miscella-

neous Sales Application for the lots in question, using as sup-

porting documents a survey plan conducted for Felipe Fernan-

dez, approved by DENR Regional Director Sultan Liambona,

among others. An endorsement of Land Management O4 cer

III Rhawel Pamplona recommended that patent be issued to

the applicant. The application was transmitted to the Regional

Executive Director of DENR XII on July 11, 1984.

The heirs of Akang Simpal fi led for a free patent application

with the DENR-CENRO, Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat. The survey

plan used in support of the said application was the plan for the

lots as surveyed for Felipe A. Fernandez on August 4, 1984 in behalf

of PEEI which was submitted as supporting document to the lat-

ter’s Miscellaneous Sales Application covering the two lots in ques-

tion. The said survey plan and a true copy of the Deed of Donation

executed by Akang Simpal in favor of Anastacia Cerezo were the

only supporting documents used for the free patent application.



Baguindali Karim (now deceased), a former employee of the

Land Management Bureau of the DENR Regional O$ ce in Cota-

bato City, processed the Free Patent Application of the heirs of

Akang Simpal, even while knowing that there was a prior Sales

Application fi led by PEEI covering the same lots. He allegedly

did not act on the latter on the basis that it is a violation of a

Constitutional provision which disallows private corporations

to hold alienable lands of the public domain except by lease.

He recommended instead for the approval of the Free Patent

application of the heirs of Akang Simpal and forwarded it to the

PENRO’s o$ ce for approval, without going through his imme-

diate superior, the OIC CENRO, who had earlier endorsed the

approval of the Miscellaneous Sales Application of PEEI.

The PENRO acted favorably on the Akang heirs’ free patent

application, and a corresponding patent was issued. Baguindali

Karim’s participation in the processing of the Free Patent Ap-

plication of the heirs of Akang Simpal was questioned by the

OIC CENRO, Rhawel Pamplona, who said Karim’s acts consti-

tute to a “connivance between the Deputy Public Lands Inspec-

tor, the Records O$ cer, and the LMS Chief (Karim) in order to

circumvent o$ ce procedure and accommodate the anomalous

and illegal scheme”. Karim was later on investigated by the

O$ ce of the Regional Executive Director in connection with

Pamplona’s complaint.

Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCIB)-Isulan

Branch (now Banco de Oro)

Baikong Akang Camsa mortgaged the parcel of land covered by

using the Free Patent obtained from DENR (TCT No 35549 for

Lot 3, the second lot in question, measuring 12,757 square me-

ters or 1.275 hectares) to secure the indebtedness of one Joenel

Moises (now deceased), by way of a loan in the amount of P2.5

Million55. The PCIB’s Account O$ cer did not see any encum-

brances, nor were there any adverse claims by third parties.

Without conducting any interviews of residents or occupants,

bank appraisers and inspectors declared the lot vacant when

the mortgage was being processed. The mortgage contract was

approved and executed on May, 1996 by spouses Joenel and Ei-

lene Moises. The Account O$ cer was aware of the prohibitions

that lands granted homestead and free patent could not be sold

and/or encumbered within fi ve years from the issuance of the

patent. The bank approved the loan application on the basis of

the DENR’s endorsement and approval.


Chronology of Events according to Bai Nelly Akang Camsa

Based on accounts of the Bai Nelly Akang Camsa, they were one

of the early families who came to Isulan who had occupied wide

tracts of land by traditional landholding. During the time of

the leadership of Datu Sema Ampatuan of Isulan, he was able to

gradually have his landholdings titled. When Christian settlers

descended to the area in the early 1950s, he developed friend-

ships with some of them. Thus, the donation to the Cerezos.

Here are the accounts of Bai Nelly Camsa56:

The father of Akang Simpal was a child of one of the

earliest occupants in Isulan. This Simpal is the child of

Daldal, who is nephew of Sultan Utto57, head of a sul-

tanate at the then adjacent town of Maganoy.



The Akangs are natives of Isulan, along with the family

of Mamantal Mawalaw. The fi rst Christian settlers

were named Ramirez, Tolentino, Amison, Aristosa,

and Kapunan. The next were the Bakligs. They came

here bearing gifts to my father: one can of kalamay

hati (sticky rice cake), chickens, and vegetables. They

were friendly. That is why the Christians were given

land by my father.

When Kudanding Kamsa58 became a sultan, he acted

similar to a governor. He creates jurisdictions and

appoints himself as its head. He married an Isulanen,

who were mostly illiterate at that time. Thus, they

simply followed his bidding. All in all he had about

40 wives, and through these marriages, came to own

about 50% of the landholdings spanning the areas of

Tuka, Kulambog, Saripinang, Pinayaw, Bagumbayan,

Sison, Nakan. He had an army of laborers working for

him clearing these lands.

[When the Christians arrived], there were no titles

on the lands in Kalawag. “Diyan kami malapit sa

Chen-sin, yung sa barangay, yung dating palengke.

Sa tatay ko man yan, di ba wala pang titulo yan?”

(We were living then near Chen-sin, a Chinese store

in the village, the former public market. My father

owned that property, and that property has no title).

Barangay Kalawag Uno was fully donated by my

father; I still have the Deed of Donation. Barangay

Kalawag Dos was then owned by Mamantal Mawalaw

and was likewise not titled. The Mamantals and the

Akangs are cousins. There was a time when a Chinese

living near the King’s College who put up a gas station

but it was foreclosed. He wanted to buy the land from

me where his house is located. I told him it is di3 cult

to sell the land, because I do not know the process. I

wanted to have everything documented fi rst, and then

I would still have the option to donate these lands.

When the Christians arrived, Datu Kudanding Kamsa

allowed them to settle at the opposite end (“sa kabilang

bukid)”. These Christians give portions of their harvests

to Datu Kudanding during harvestime.

We lived at the back of the municipal hall before the

Japanese arrived. The municipal hall then was located

in Dulawan. When the war [with the Japanese] hap-

pened, we left Kalawag and lived at the area where the

[present day] municipal hall of Isulan is located. Then,

tax declarations only amounted to twenty centavos.

The assessor then was a person named Gidtem, who

hailed from Dulawan, and we paid only 20 centavors

per 100 hectares. Barangay Kalawag Uno and Dos

were never sold by the Akangs. This was owned by our

grandfather, measuring about 150 hectares. Barangay

Kalawag Dos was donated by Mamantal, our uncle.

Because they (the Barkers) have already benefi ted

from King’s College, they should give me what is right-

fully mine because they will only lose [in court]. If they

wish to pay us, we could move to another land so there

will be no more confl ict. We are only asking for a small



portion: two hectares from the 12 1/2 hectares donated

by my father. So long as everything is clear (‘malinis

lang’). “Ang gusto ko, yong gina claim dyan sa amin sa

Kings College is 12 hectares yan, kaya lang ang na titu-

luhan namin, yung two hectares lang, kasi naka titulo

sila kaagad nung panahon ng Martial Law” (What I

want is only two out of the 12 hectares we are claiming

out of the King’s College’s property. We were only able

to obtain titles on two hectares, while they were able to

get titles on the rest of the property during the Martial

Law period).

Chronology of Events according to Jabe Barker

According to the accounts of Jabe Barker59, when Bai Nelly fi led

claims on the land, he conducted an extensive research on the

school property’s history. One of his fi ndings is that the lands of

the Akang families are located along or near what is now the na-

tional highway, and thus could not have included the King’s Col-

lege campus. He had seen the deed of donation provided by the

Akangs and executed by Akang Simpal to the Cerezo family, and

based on what he saw of its technical description, the 12 hectares

being alluded to was at that time surrounded by lots belonging

to families with Muslim names, located at the 8) western por-

tion of Kalawag poblacion (now Isulan). The school campus on

the other hand is more than one kilometer away from the town

center, to the east of Kalawag, and is bounded by lots owned by

Christians. He came to the conclusion that Bai Nelly was in col-

lusion with or at least being used by elements within the DENR’s

Region XII o- ce, facilitating her fraudulent claim the land,

while making money out of her ignorance. These DENR person-

nel have allegedly been involved in anomalous transactions as

related to Jabe Barker by other DENR co-workers themselves.

Mr. Barker believes these DENR personnel produced fraudulent

titles and deeds of donation in favor of the Akangs.

Here are Jabe Barker’s accounts of the story60:

My father was the director of the school from the early

1960s up to 1976. My father is now 84 years old. I grew

up here. My wife is a Filipina, and I am a permanent

resident here. This is the original status of King,s Col-

lege in Isulan, originally named Kalawag Institute,

located in what used to be Noralla, Cotabato Prov-

ince: The Townsite of Isulan was established in 1952.

The prior year, a well-educated couple by the name of

Cerezo migrated from Luzon to Mindanao, as part of

the government plan after World War II to provide

lands to the migrating settlers. They fi rst started in

Tacurong area (Lambayong) to establish schools, but

their school in Tacurong did not prosper. They then

put up a school in Kalawag (now Isulan), the Kala-

wag Institute. LASEDECO61 originally awarded them

some 12 hectares for the school. The school operated

from 1952 until 1955. These accounts I got from Mrs.

Cerezo. In 1955 they decided to move to General San-

tos, and sold the Kalawag Institute to a group of 22

Christian residents. This group of 22 residents in turn

transferred their rights to the Philippine Evangelical

Enterprises in 1958. PEEI, from then on, administered

the school which became King’s College of Isulan.

Akang Simpal, father of Baikong Camsa, negotiated

with Mrs. Cerezo in 1952 or thereabouts. Within that



period, the Cerezos also had transactions with Datu

Kudanding62, the Muslim Authority during those days.

Datu Kudanding had a daughter and Cerezo had a son

and it seems that Datu Kudanding was interested in

marriage between his daughter and Cerezo’s son. The

Cerezos were not in favor of the union, and they subse-

quently moved to General Santos [to escape pressure

from the Datu]. Included in those transactions was a

deed of donation facilitated by Datu Kudanding for

the donation of Akang’s land measuring 12 hectares

to the Cerezos. That land was donated when the school

was already operating. According to Mrs. Cerezo, they

have never occupied the 12 hectares of land donated by

Akang Simpal. When we asked her why she did not oc-

cupy the land, she answered that it was too far from this

school [Kalawag Institute]. The land being reclaimed

by Baikong Akang is about two kilometers away, ac-

cording to Cerezo. We asked her what happened to the

12 hectares donated by Akang Simpal, since she did

not use the land. Was the donation not consummated?

She told us they did not really need the 12 hectares of

land because the Kalawag Institute was already estab-

lished then, and they did not need another 12 hectares

of land for another school. We asked her where exactly

that Akang piece of land is located. She replied that

it was near the Municipal Hall of Isulan. She told me

that, as far as she knew, it had since then transferred

ownership to a certain Valdez. If you pinpoint the land

of the Valdez family, it is where the current Land Bank

is situated.

Before the donation was transacted, the school had

already been established in its current location, and

occupying the land assigned to the Cerezos by the LA-

SEDECO.

I have also seen the deed of donation executed by Akang

Simpal in favor of Anastacia Cerezo. The technical de-

scription of the 12 hectares indicates: a certain parcel

of land bounded on the north by a land owned by a cer-

tain Muslim name; (thus a Muslim owns it); bounded

on the west by a land owned by another Muslim name;

bounded on the south by land owned by another Muslim

name; and bounded on the east by Kalawag Poblacion.

The creek actually served as some sort of boundary;

the Christians mainly occupied the east side of this

creek and the Muslims tended to stay more on the

other side but further to the west. Kalawag Poblacion,

per survey in 1952, was and is situated on the west

side of Kalawag creek. The creek serves as the eastern

boundary of the poblacion. King’s College is east of

the creek, and therefore even farther to the east of

Kalawag Poblacion. Thus, the 12 hectares donation is

somewhere on the opposite side of the creek and beyond

the western boundary of the poblacion. So Mrs. Cerezo

must be correct in her estimate of the property being

located two kilometers away from King’s College. It

is impossible to conclude that the land includes the

school property because their own deed of donation

executed by their father clearly states it is located west

of Kalawag Poblacion because the technical description



says it is bounded on the east by Kalawag Poblacion. So

it is impossible for this claim to be in the vicinity of the

school. Mrs Cerezo, who is still alive, testifi ed to that

e$ ect exactly.

This property (King’s College) never had the history of

being connected to Akang Simpal. Their claim should

be near where the municipal building is located; that’s

common knowledge, because even the street behind

the municipal hall is named Akang Street. So presum-

ably, the Akangs had land somewhere there, but never

in this area. The basis of the claim of Baikong Camsa

is that according to her, this school area is part of the

12 hectares donated by her father [to the Cerezos]. But

that is not true. Even their own technical description

indicates that their property is very far from the school.

This school property also never had connections with

Datu Kudanding. The Cerezos acquired this from LA-

SEDECO. This was not donated to them by any person.

[As mentioned], there was a separate 12-hectare parcel

of land donated to the Cerezos, but this donation was

not consummated. After many years, Baikong must

have, through wishful thinking, come to the conclusion

that the school grounds were donated by her father to

the Cerezos. On that basis, they were motivated to pro-

duce fraudulent titles from the DENR. There is a title in

the name of Baikong and the heirs of Akang Simpal, but

those titles were fraudulently acquired using a forged

transfer of rights from the former director of the school

to the Akangs. That Director of the school vehemently

denied under oath that he ever executed any transfer of

rights in favor of the Akang heirs, in fact he had never

met them. Furthermore, his true signature bears no re-

semblance whatsoever to the signature on the forged

transfer of rights. To my knowledge, a certain Bagu-

indali Karim, an o. cial of the DENR, is the master-

mind of all this nonsense, but now he is dead.

The case now is at the Court of Appeals because it was

dismissed in the Regional Trial Court. But it was not

dismissed on the basis of the merits of the case but

[ because of ] a mere technicality because the school is

owned by a corporation and, according to the judge, a

corporation cannot acquire public lands. Corporations

are barred from acquiring public lands except by lease.

A corporation can purchase land which has already

been titled but public lands cannot be purchased by

a corporation. But there is an exception to that. This

property, as with most property in Isulan, was owned

by LASEDECO which was subsequently turned-over

to the Board of Liquidators63. The Board of Liquida-

tors has the authority to award the property to any

entity or corporation or private person. It means that

the property, although originated from public lands,

has been segregated from the public domain. PEEI

completed payments to the BOL for this school site of

the Cerezo’s Kalawag Institute that was originally as-

signed to the Cerezos by the LASEDECO. The Cerezos

were not able to acquire a title before they transferred

to General Santos, however PEEI has already acquired

titles for the seven-plus hectares a long time ago. After



the transfer of ownership of the 22 [Christian settlers]

to us, only seven hectares was left. Even that serves as

the precedent: if that property was awarded to a corpo-

ration, why not an area of 1.2 hectares? We have fi led

an appeal [on the case]. Even the RTC judge himself

[who ruled in their favor by dismissing our case] appre-

ciated all the fraudulent [means in the] production of

the title in the name of Baikong and her brothers and

sisters. The judge acknowledged that they have never

occupied this property since 1952. We lost on the tech-

nicality concerning corporations, so that is [now] the

basis of our appeal. [The land is] now under reversion

because the Solicitor General intervened to revert the

fraudulent title.

The decision of the RTC was not exactly in [our] favor

but that decision, even though we lost, is very negative

against the Akang heirs. The fi ndings of fact stated that

[there was fraud]. The deposition of Cerezo that was

entered there [established] that the property donated

to her [ by Akang Simpal] had nothing to do with the

Kalawag Institute and was not even close to the school

site. The decision, based on the fi ndings of fact, also es-

tablished that there is no record of Akang Simpal or his

heirs ever occupying the property in question.

It is now a question of applicable laws on corporations.

I don’t know [if the Akangs would again fi gure] be-

cause after acquiring the fraudulent title to this prop-

erty, it was mortgaged immediately to PCI Bank with

the total mortgage amount of 2.5 Million [pesos], ad-

ditional to an original loan of 800,000. An addition-

al 1.7 Million [pesos was obtained] using this prop-

erty as collateral. The benefi ciary of the loan is in the

name of Joenel Moises. He benefi ted from the transac-

tion, using the title of Baikong as collateral. [I heard

only] 300,000 [pesos] was given to Baikong [out of

this loan]. His wife, who was an employee of PCI that

time, facilitated that fraudulent loan. The loan was

obviously made in bad faith because PCI knew very

well that this property has been occupied by the school

ever since, but they did not question [the loan applica-

tion]. Many of those involved in this fraud, Baguindali

Karim, the former manager of PCI Bank of Isulan, and

the wife of Joenel are all dead, all of them greedy, cor-

rupt masterminds or participants.

Actually we were quite surprised when all of these

things arose. The school has been operating peacefully

here since 1958 and the fi rst that we encountered this

problem was already in 1996. Before then there was no

confl ict, no nothing.

In 1996, an attempt was made by the Akang heirs to

forcibly occupy the property. Then, in 199864, we really

had a confl ict because they actually did forcibly occu-

py the area for almost three months. They entered the

area and put up some temporary bamboo structures.

We had a di5 cult time ejecting them. Certainly, there

was no evidence that shows Akang Simpal [nor his

heirs] ever occupied this property. Since 1952, the time

of the earliest settlers who were here, there is nobody



among the old-timers who would say that this property

was ever occupied by the Akangs.

[The Akang heirs and I ] have not seen each other for

over two years now. From time to time we see each

other in court. Even though I personally was man-

handled and subsequently received a variety of threats

against my life from some of the Akangs or persons

closely associated with them, I hold nothing person-

ally against Baikong or her family. I suppose she was

probably somewhat of a pawn. Nevertheless, the fraud

which was unjustly perpetrated against the school

has wasted and continues to waste so much time and

money that would otherwise have been used to further

improve the school’s service to the community. Instead,

only the lawyers are benefi ting.

We have a growing numbers of Muslim students in

the school. Last year there were about 12 students and

this year 17. There are 600 plus students from Kinder-

garten to elementary and high school. There is also a

4-year [college] course in Education. If you happen to

see the Akang family please tell them they are welcome

to send their children to school here.

Chronology of Events according to Court Records and

Proceedings

Court Records and Proceedings from Civil Case No. 922 fi led by

PEEI before the 12th Judicial Branch of the Regional Trial Court

of Isulan establish the following chronology of events based on

the court testimonies of the disputants:

Anastacia Cerezo and her husband lived in Kalawag Uno, Isu-

lan, then part of Noralla, Cotabato (now Isulan, Sultan Kudarat)

from 1952 to 1955. They acquired the Kalawag Institute school

site through an award by LASEDECO. The Kalawag Institute

was established in 1952; Anastacia Cerezo was then its Direc-

tress. The school site of the Kalawag Institute is on Lot 1375 of

the Kalawag Townsite Subdivision consisting of an area of ap-

proximately eight hectares (73,742 square meters).

On June 2, 1955, spouses Gregorio and Anastacia Cerezo

executed an Absolute Deed of Conveyance of Rights and Inter-

est on the Kalawag Institute in favor of 22 private individuals,

as vendees.

King’s College (formerly Kalawag Institute) had occupied

the school site since 1958. Said school site is now registered in

the name of the Philippine Evangelical Enterprises, Inc (PEEI)

under OCT No T4433, pursuant to a LASEDECO Miscellaneous

Sales Patent No 4645 issued on November 16, 199065 PEEI is a

private corporation established and registered with the Securi-

ties and Exchange Commission on February 13, 1958. PEEI had

acquired the school site and building of the Kalawag Institute

through a purchase from the same group of 22 private individu-

als that were recipients of the Absolute Deed of Conveyance of

Rights and Interest from Anastacia and Gregorio Cerezo. This

group of 22 private individuals executed a Transfer and Renun-

ciation of Rights in favor of PEEI dated May 21, 1959, ceding,

transferring, conveying, and relinquishing all rights to the land

to PEEI. Upon acquiring the school site and building, PEEI

changed the name of the school into King’s College.



A vacant lot adjacent to and fronting the school (and is now

the subject of Civil Case 922) has been used by the school “by

tolerance” since 1958 as a playground and CMT ground. It had

always been believed that the vacant lot belonged to the Munici-

pality of Isulan, “as part of reservation for public improvements,

reserved for open spaces for the Municipality of Isulan based on

the Kalawag Institute Townsite Subdivision Plan prepared and

surveyed by the then Bureau of Lands”66. The Institute had a

verbal agreement with the Municipality of Isulan on the use of the

lot in question. Later on, a Deed of Donation was executed by the

Municipality in favor of the Kalawag Institute in 1974, on the basis

of a municipal legislation, Resolution 19, dated August 20, 1974.

This donation was made in exchange for a six-hectare parcel

of land that is now the site of the Sultan Kudarat Provincial

Hospital. Earlier, PEEI on December 24, 1960 had o1 ered to buy

from the Municipality of Isulan an area of four hectares from

the Kalawag Townsite Subdivision (reserved as Municipal Gov-

ernment Center and Municipal Building Site)67.

Supported by a Municipal Council Resolution (Resolution No.

53, Series of 1961), a Deed of Conditional Sale concerning these

four hectares of land was executed between the Municipality of

Isulan and PEEI on June 14, 1961. In addition to the four hect-

ares parcel of land, the Municipality of Isulan also donated two

hectares of land adjoining the four hectares, which now made

the total donated land to six hectares (now the present site of

the Sultan Kudarat Provincial Hospital). A deed of donation was

executed on October 18, 1961 concerning this two hectares parcel

of land, and approved by the Municipal Council through a resolu-

tion (Resolution No. 54 Series of 1961) on that said date.

Later on, the Municipality of Isulan wanted to take back

the six hectares it donated to PEEI and instead donate it to the

Provincial Government of Sultan Kudarat as hospital site. In

Resolution 19 dated August 20, 1974, the Municipality of Isulan

was authorized to execute a deed of donation in favor of Kalawag

Institute over “a certain portion of the government reserved

site in another area adjacent to Kalawag Institute though this

area may be smaller” than six hectares, for use of the latter

exclusively for educational purposes. That parcel of land being

referred to is the playground and CMT ground being used by the

Kalawag Institute.

On the basis of the August 20, 1974 municipal resolution,

PEEI through its Board of Trustees, authorized Petronio Cagas

(then a member of the Board of Directors of PEEI, and was the

school’s Agriculture teacher since 1958) to apply for a title over

the vacant lots (playground and CMT ground)68. A Transfer

and Renunciation of Rights dated April 2, 1984 was executed by

Petronio Cagas in favor of Felipe Fernandez, another member of

the Board of Directors of PEEI. Spouses Felipe and Lolita Fer-

nandez later on executed a Deed of Donation dated January 6,

1986 in favor of PEEI over the lots in question. A Miscellaneous

Sales Application was fi led before the Board of Liquidators on

December 23, 199369, which was subsequently approved on July

30, 198970.The Board of Liquidators then recommended for the

issuance of a patent in the name of PEEI on October 30, 1989.

One of the supporting documents used by the PEEI in its

Miscellaneous Sales Application was a plan surveyed for Felipe

A. Fernandez conducted on August 4, 1984, and approved by



DENR Regional Director Sultan Liambona71. (This supporting

document would later be used by the heirs of Akang Simpal as

also one of the documents used in the issuance of a title in their

favor over the disputed lots.)

The Sales Application of PEEI was forwarded to the Regional

Executive Director of DENR Cotabato City from the DENR-

CENRO, Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat on July 11, 1994.

While waiting for the result of the Miscellaneous Sales Ap-

plication, PEEI received information that the said lots had been

registered in the names of heirs of Akang Simpal, represented

by Baikong Akang Camsa, with Original Certifi cate of Title No

P-16860 issued under Free Patent No 126504-96-10706 dated

September 23, 1996, and that said title was later cancelled with

the issuance of separate certifi cates of title for the two lots. One

lot (Lot 1) was registered under the names of Hadji Abdullah, Ali,

Kadil, Wahni, Lukaya, Tho and Mangelen, all surnamed Akang,

under TCT No T-35550 dated October 30, 1996, while the other

parcel of land (Lot 3) was registered in the name of Baikong Akang

Camsa under TCT No T-35549, also dated October 30, 199672.

Baguindali Karim (now deceased), an employee of the Land

Management Bureau of the DENR Regional O1 ce in Cotabato

City, was as of March 11, 1996 assigned as Land Management

O1 cer III of the CENRO-DENR, Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat. He

had initially processed the Free Patent Application of the heirs

of Akang Simpal, fi led sometime in 1996. He knew that there was

a prior Sales Application fi led by the PEEI, covering the same

lots, but allegedly did not act upon the latter, citing Article XII

Section 3 of the Philippine Constitution, which disallows private

corporations to hold alienable disposable lands of the public

domain except by lease.

He went on to recommend for the approval of the Free Pat-

ent Application of the heirs of Akang Simpal, and forwarded it

directly to the PENRO-DENR, Isulan, Sultan Kudarat for fi nal

processing, without passing through the o1 ce of the CENRO-

DENR Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat. The PENRO acted favorably

on the said Free Patent Application, and a corresponding patent

was issued.

Karim’s participation in the processing of the Free Patent Ap-

plication of the heirs of Akang Simpal was subsequently ques-

tioned by OIC CENRO of Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat, Rhawel

Pamplona. In a Memorandum dated February 4, 1997, Pamplona

asked Karim to submit a written explanation why he should not

be administratively charged for non observance of O1 ce Stan-

dard Operating Procedures.

In the said Memorandum, Pamplona said Karim’s acts

“constitute to a connivance between the Deputy Public Lands

Inspector (DPLI), Records Officer (Alicia Flores), and the Land

Management Serices Chief (Karim) in order to circumvent

o1 ce procedure and accommodate the anomalous and illegal

scheme”. 73 Karim was later investigated by the O1 ce of the Re-

gional Executive Director of DENR Region XII acting on Pam-

plona’s complaint. (However, court records do not indicate what

the outcome of the said investigation was).

The Free Patent Application of the heirs of Akang Simpal was

not produced as evidence in court, thus the exact date of the ap-



plication could not be ascertained. The Records O" cer testifi ed

that the Free Patent Application contained as supporting docu-

ments (among others) a photocopied copy of the survey plan in

the name of Felipe Fernandez, and an alleged Transfer of Rights

signed by Felipe Fernandez in favor of Baikong Akang Camsa

covering the said lots.

Felipe Fernandez later testifi ed that he had never seen the al-

leged deed of transfer of rights covering the lots in question, and

that he did not execute said document. He instead said he re-

called having donated his rights in favor of PEEI in writing. He

said the alleged “transfer of conveyance” in favor of the Akang

heirs was completely fraudulent for the following reasons: he

does not know them, he never met them, he never entered into

any transaction with them, and that he was out of the country

for seven years from 1992 until 1999.

Karim admitted in his testimony that he did not refer the

Free Patent application of the heirs of Akang Simpal to his im-

mediate superior, OIC CENRO Pamplona. He said he was acting

in haste on the said FP Application. He could not even ascertain

that the heirs of Akang Simpal paid the taxes on the land at the

time of their fi ling of the Free Patent application.

During the investigation on the misconduct of Karim, et.al,

Alicia Flores, Records O" cer of the CENRO-DENR in Sultan

Kudarat, declared (in a sworn statement and in direct testimonies

in court) that Baguindali Karim took the Free Patent Application

of the heirs of Akang Simpal from the Records O" ce on Sept

ember 24, 1994 for processing, but did not return them to her.

The carpeta of the FP application was taken by Karim in

his capacity as Chief of the Land Management Section of the

CENRO, Isulan, Sultan Kudarat. The application should have

returned to the Records O" cer for recording and subsequent

transmittal to the CENRO (Pamplona), whether for “approval,

patentable, noted or rejected”, with duplicates kept at the Re-

cords O" ce. No such duplicate copies exist, thus the Records Of-

fi cer concludes that the papers were never returned, and could

not have passed through the CENRO.

A public land application cannot be assigned a new number

if there is an existing land application over the same parcel of

land, unless there is a quit-claim deed or transfer of rights over

the land in favor of an applicant. However, the Records O" cer

had assigned a number (FP Application No. 126504-288) for the

Free Patent application by the Akang heirs, despite the previous

Sales Application by PEEI, allegedly on the basis of the “transfer

of conveyance” allegedly executed in favor of the Akang heirs

by Felipe A Fernandez. 74 which was later ascertained by Felipe

Fernandez as a fraudulent document. The Records O" cer had

allegedly told Karim to “double check” the said application,

since OIC CENRO Pamplona had earlier signed a patentable

report relative to the Sales Application fi led by PEEI.

Baikong Camsa on December 4, 1996 mortgaged a portion

of the parcel of land in dispute (CMT and playground of King’s

College), using the Free Patent obtained from DENR (TCT No

35549 for Lot 3, the second lot in question, measuring 12,757

square meters or 1.275 hectares) to secure the indebtedness

of one Joenel Moises (now deceased), by way of a loan in the



amount of P2.5 Million. The PCIB’s Account O% cer, Rene Gal-

lega, did not see any encumbrances, nor did he acknowledge any

adverse claims by third parties. Without conducting any inter-

views of residents or occupants, bank appraisers and inspectors

declared the lot vacant.

The mortgage contract was approved by DENR and executed

on May, 1996 by spouses Joenel and Eilene Moises (now both

deceased). The Account O% cer was aware of the prohibitions

that lands granted homestead and free patent could not be sold

and/or encumbered within fi ve years form the issuance of the

patent. The bank approved the loan application on December 6,

1996 (within two days after the fi ling of the loan application) on

the basis of the DENR’s endorsement and approval.

The bank itself secured the DENR approval of the mortgage

contract. The mortgage contract used only three supporting

documents: TCT 35549, covering Lot 3; Tax Declaration, and

A% davit of non-tenancy, non-claims and confl ict and land-

holding75. The mortgage contract was approved by Hadji Salic

B. Macmoud, Land Management O% cer III, on December 6,

1996. The mortgage contract was executed on the same date,

amending the Real Estate Mortgage dated May 3, 1996 ex-

ecuted by spouses Eileen Rose and Joenel Moises, increasing

the loan amount from P800,000 to P2,500,000, an increase of

P1,700,000. 76 (Incidentally, the fair market value of said mort-

gaged lot is only P516,132 with an assessed value of only P84,170

e7 ective 199777).

The Account O% cer admitted that he did not bother ex-

amining the original source of TCT 35549, which should have

informed him that the said title is a derivative title from Origi-

nal Certifi cate of Title No P-16880 pursuant to Free Patent No

126504288 issued on September 23, 1996 under Act 141, in favor

of the heirs of Akang Simpal.

The Accounts O% cer was aware of the prohibitions that

lands granted through homestead and free patent could not

be sold nor encumbered within fi ve years from the issuance of

the patent. The Accounts O% cer said he recommended for the

approval of the mortgage contract anyway on the basis of the

DENR approval. 78

On December 5, 1996, Lot 3 was entered by the Akang heirs

who took possession of the lots by constructing a fence around

the area. PEEI was compelled to fi le a case of Forcible Entry and

Damages, docketed as Civil Case No. 688 against Baikong Akang

Camsa with the Municipal Trial Court of Isulan. A decision

rendered on the said case on May 22, 1997 restored the PEEI

to possession of Lots No 1 and 3, and ordered Baikong Akang

Camsa to remove the wire fence she erected on the property at

her own expense.79

The court in its ruling on Case 922 on the said lots focused on

the issue of whether PEEI, as a private corporation, is qualifi ed

to acquire lands of the public domain. The court said that being a

private corporation, the PEEI was not qualifi ed to acquire lands

of the public domain pursuant to Article XIV Sec 11 of the 1973

Constitution and Article XII Sec 3 of the 1987 Constitution.80

Resolution No. 19 dated August 20, 1974, issued by the Mu-

nicipality of Isulan, was therefore unconstitutional. PEEI did

not acquire any vested right over the said lots before the e7 ecti-



vity of the 1973 Constitution, as said lots were not private land

as of August 20, 1974 when Resolution 19 was issued. Moreover,

the Municipal Council of Isulan had no right whatsoever to

dispose or distribute lands of the public domain, the said right

being exclusively vested with the Bureau of Lands.81

Thus PEEI did not at all own or acquire any right over the lots

in question as of 1974, except by lease, and therefore had no right

to transfer any right over the parcel of land, subject matter of

Municipal Resolution No. 19 dated August 1974. Thus, the Board

Resolution No 1 Series of 1982 issued by the PEEI, authoriz-

ing Petronio Cagas to apply for a title over the lots in his name,

the Transfer and Renunciation of Rights executed by Petronio

Cagas in favor of Felipe Fernandez, and the Deed of Donation

executed by spouses Felipe and Lolita Fernandez dated January

6, 1986 in favor or PEEI were “mere scraps of paper without any

legal e. ect and created no right whatsoever, insofar as the said

lots are concerned”.82

The court also ruled that “except for the bare testimony of

Baikong Akang Camsa, there were no further evidence o. ered

by the Akang heirs that the lots in question were parts of the

allegedly private claim of their father. There was no public land

application covering the said lots in question. Neither was a

patent covering the said lots issued to Akang Simpal, therefore

the lots did not become private property of the late Akang Sim-

pal. It was not duly established that the lots in question formed

parts of the alleged ancestral land of the Akangs, as members of

indigenous cultural communities, neither was it established by

su0 cient evidence that they have occupied and possessed said

lots. Since 1952, the Akangs and their deceased parents were

nowhere to be found in said lots, but said lots were used and oc-

cupied by the Kalawag Institute, and later by King’s College, up

to the present, publicly and continuously”. 83

The Akang heirs allege that the two lots in question were por-

tions of the 12-hectare parcel of land allegedly owned by their

deceased father, Akang Simpal, which the latter had donated in

favor of Anastacia Cerezo, through a “Quit-Claim thru Dona-

tion Inter Vivos” executed by Akang Simpal on June 3, 1952. The

Akang heirs argue that only 10 hectares of the alleged donated

parcel of land were used by Anastacia Cerezo, which is now al-

legedly the school site of the King’s College. The remaining two

hectares of land are now allegedly Lots 1, 2, and 3 (Lots 1 and 3

are the lots in dispute, Lot 2 is a road lot).

However, Anastacia Cerezo in her deposition declared that

the 12-hectare parcel of land donated to her by Akang Simpal

and referred to by the Quit Claim through Donation Inter Vivo

dated June 3, 1952 is a di. erent lot, and not the lot which is now

the school site of the King’s College and the adjacent lots being

disputed. The 12 hectares of land donated by Akang Simpal were

located about two kilometers away from the Kalawag Institute’s

school site, towards the location of the Municipal Building of

Isulan, Sultan Kudarat. Mrs Cerezo declared that the Kalawag

Institute school building already existed on its present site at

the time of the execution of the Quit Claim through Donation

Inter Vivo.

The court in its ruling said that granting, for the sake of argu-

ment, that the two lots in question formed parts of the donated

land to the Cerezos by Akang Simpal, the latter and his heirs had



ceased to have any right and interest on the said 12 hectares of

land by virtue of the Quit Claim through Donation Inter Vivo.

The donation in favor or Anastacia Cerezo was not revoked by

Akang Simpal up to the time of his death in 1963. It follows that

the heirs of Akang Simpal had no right at all to claim any portion

of the donated 12-hectare parcel of land, and that the heirs had

never occupied nor were in actual physical possession of any

portion of the 12 hectare donated land after June 3, 1952.

Thus, the only basis for the Free Patent application of

the heirs of Akang Simpal was the alleged Transfer of Rights

executed in favor of Baikong Akang Camsa by Felipe Fernandez,

which the latter denounced as forged documents.

On the question of the validity and legality of the deed of

mortgage in favor of PCI Bank Isulan Branch used to secure the

loan obtained by Joenel and Eileen Rose Moises, the court ruled

that it is in violation of Section 118 of the Public Land Act which

provides that lands acquired under a Free Patent or homestead

provisions shall not be subject to encumbrances for a term of

fi ve years from the date of issuance of the patent, nor shall they

become liable to the satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to

the expiration of the said period. Section 24 of the Public Land

Act also provides that “any acquisition, conveyance, alienation

or other contract made or executed in violation of any of the

provisions of Sec. 18 of this Act shall be unlawful and null and

void from its execution, and shall produce the e. ect of annul-

ling and canceling the... patent... and cause the reversion of the

property and its improvements to the State”.

While the government may recover lands of the public do-

main fraudulently awarded, the required action for reversion

must be instituted by the Solicitor General. In the meantime, the

awardee shall retain possession of the land in question, as the

land has already become a private land registered in the person’s

name, until the court orders its reversion, which would have the

e. ect of canceling the free patent and the corresponding certifi -

cate of title, as well as its derivative titles. The end result is that

the land covered will again form part of the public domain.

The court also ruled that being the registered owners of the

lots in question, the Akang heirs are entitled under the law to

the enjoyment of all the attributes of ownership over Lots 1 and

3. As being owners of Lots 1 and 3, the Akang heirs have the right

to recover possession of the said lots, and are entitled to the pro-

tection of their rights as to the possession of the lots in question.

In sum, the court ruled in favor of the Akang heirs, as PEEI is

not qualifi ed to hold alienable lands of the public domain except

by lease, and for lack of legal standing to fi le instant action

for cancellation/annulment of the Free Patent awarded to the

Akang heirs, the instant action being a case of reversion, which

only the Solicitor general has the authority to fi le.

PEEI had fi led an appeal on the case, and it is currently pend-

ing resolution. The focus of its appeal is on its legal standing as a

corporation to own lands, using the powers of the LASEDECO to

distribute lands as basis of its argument. The O2 ce of the Solici-

tor General has also reportedly fi led a case of reversion on the

subject lands to recover the lands in favor of the government.



STORY 4A Land Confl ict Case between Moros and the Aromanon Manobo Tribe in Carmen, Cotabato

Background

This confl ict involves a portion of the land once shared by the

Manobo and Moro communities in the municipality of Carmen,

Cotabato. The Manobo’s tribal leader accommodated into their

territory a number of Moro families, who were displaced by the

war in Mindanao in the 1970s. The Moro community was given

an area within a kilometer stretch along the Muleta River in Si-

tio Pagalungan in Carmen’s Barangay Kimadzil. Their numbers

grew when the war displaced more Moro communities nearby.

Upon the Moro people’s request, the Manobos allowed them

to occupy the adjoining area comprising of another kilometer

stretch, which was subsequently left by Manobos who had fl ed

the war. The entry of Moro communities into the additional area

was regulated by an agreement that its occupants would vacate

upon the return of the Manobo evacuees.

The Manobo and Moro communities lived in harmony

until the outbreak of the confl ict between the government and

Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) in 2000 which a- ected

Barangay Kimadzil. The two groups were pitted against each

other when they were forced to take sides in the confl ict. Their

erstwhile healthy relationship was broken when they incurred

casualties. After government troops overran an MILF camp set

up in the barangay, the Moro community was forced to fl ee. The

Manobos gained control over the barangay when it was turned

over to them by government troops.

The Moro community is yet to return to the lands they for-

merly occupied in Barangay Kimadzil. They claim the area was

either given or sold to them by the Manobos. The Manobos, who

are yet to recover from the e- ects of the war, refused the Moros

re-entry to the community. Though there is now relatively less

possibility of violence erupting between these communities,

resolution of the confl ict lies on the preliminary negotiations

facilitated by their leaders.

The Parties

Kimadzil Ilianon Aromanon Manobo Tribe

The Manobos are indigenous peoples traditionally living in

Central Mindanao, particularly in Cotabato and some parts of

Bukidnon. They believe that their ancestors originally occupied

the plains in what is now the municipality of Carmen, in Ba-

rangay Aroman, which, in their dialect means “wedding place,”

from which they also take their unique identity among the

Manobo tribes. The Manobos, though having their own politi-

cal and economic system, had not always known cash economy.

They used barter system as a popular practice of trade, until re-

cent years.84 The Manobos in Barangay Kimadzil are descended

from their ancestors who came from Ilian and Aroman, all in

Central Mindanao.



Damasco Ampalid Sr. is the son of Timuay Pedro Ampalid,

the chieftain of the Manobo tribe in all of Carmen. Damasco

assumed his father’s position upon his father’s death in August

1992. As the present Timuay, he presides over the Aromanon

Manobo Tribe in Carmen. He also administers the transactions

his father entered into, such as the entry of outsiders into their

territory. He is currently elected barangay kagawad of Kimadzil.

He also served as barangay chair of Kimadzil for one term.

The Moro Community

The Moro community is composed of about 186 Maguindanao

Muslim families who fl ed the scourge of the war in Maguindanao

and other parts of Mindanao in the 1970s. Through the kindness

of Timuay Pedro, they were given access to the ancestral lands of

the Manobos in Barangay Kimadzil. They are supporters of the

MILF whose camp in the barangay was overrun by the military

at the height of the all-out-war between government and Moro

rebels in 2000. Being supporters of MILF, they were forced

to leave the lands they occupied in the barangay. They are

presently staying with relatives around Carmen, living in yet

another period of evacuation. Some are in Sitios Matama, Lala,

Lepbas in the municipality of President Roxas, while others

have returned to Barangay Kibayao. In these areas, they hire

themselves out to farming, earning meager incomes but always

yearning to return to the lands they have either bought or oc-

cupied in Kilabaw and Pagalungan.

The Moro community is represented by Kumander Iskak,

the spokesperson and trusted fi eld operative of Kumander Kineg

Inalang, the MILF’s governor for what they call the Kapalawan

Province which has command over members in the municipality

of Carmen. Kumander Iskak is in charge of administering MILF

assistance to the communities displaced by the war.

National Commission on the Indigenous People (NCIP)

The NCIP is the primary government agency that formulates

and implements policies, plans and programs for the recognition,

promotion and protection of the rights and well-being of indig-

enous peoples with due regard to their ancestral domains and

lands, self-governance and empowerment, social justice and hu-

man rights, and cultural integrity.85 The NCIP O/ ce that caters

to the indigenous peoples in Central Mindanao (Region XII) is

based in Libungan, Cotabato. It has processed tenurial

instruments for a number of IPs in the region, including that of

the Aromanon Manobos in Barangay Aroman, Carmen. At pres-

ent, it is assisting the tribe led by Timuay Damasco for the titling

of the territory of the Ilian Aromanon Manobos of Barangay

Kimadzil.


Chronology of Events according to the Ilian Aromanon

Manobo Tribe

According to Timuay Damasco Ampalid’s personal recollec-

tion, Muslims entered their area in peace, bringing gifts such as

dried fi sh, tobacco, and bettle nuts as tokens of goodwill. They

called his father, then tribal chief Timuay Pedro Ampalid, “Ama”

(father) in deference to his status and leadership. Because the

Manobo elders were generous, the Muslims were welcomed to

stay and work for their living.

Following are Timuay Damasco’s accounts:86



The fi rst Muslim that arrived in Kilabaw was Antig

Abang. He was accommodated out of pity by my fa-

ther Timuay Pedro Ampalid in Sitio Kilabaw where

he worked and raised his family. Upon learning of the

kindness and the good means of living that the Mano-

bos gave him, Antig’s in-laws and relatives soon fol-

lowed and stayed with him. Eventually, his in-laws

asked Antig to make an appeal before my father to ex-

tend to them the same act of kindness.

I had an uncle named Pancho who became a friend

of Antig’s. They were close friends for a long time. In

their closeness they agreed to have one of their chil-

dren to become part of each of their families. And so it

happened that Pancho’s child, Hemistan, became part

of Antig’s family and Kasamela, of Pancho’s family.

My uncle gave four out of his 10-hectare land to Antig

to help him raise his child. Their friendship deepened

and they became good leaders. That was how they were

able to occupy lands in our territory. My uncle shared

and entrusted these lands to them out of friendship.

When the war erupted in the 1970s, Muslims in the

Muleta area became targets of the military operations

of the 27th Battalion. These operations forced the

Muslims to fl ee to safer grounds, leaving their farms

unattended. Because of this, then MNLF’s area

commander Amay Kugaw met with my father. He told

my father how the people under his leadership lost

their livelihoods due to constant harassment by the

Military. He asked my father for assistance to solve

his problem. My father o, ered to Amay Kugaw the

area which was evacuated by some of his subjects. He

said, “in the meantime that my men has not returned

in Pagalungan, your men can stay and work there.

But when my subjects return, and your area in Muleta

would be peaceful, your men must leave the area.”

Later, due to the infl ux of more Muslims who followed

their relatives occupying lands in Pagalungan, Amay

Kugao requested for additional areas for occupation.

My father agreed to extend by another kilometer the

stretch of land on which he allowed the Muslims to

occupy. My father made it clear to them that the ad-

ditional area was devoted only for work and not given

in the same manner as the fi rst kilometer was given,

and that land should be vacated upon the return of the

original Manobo occupants.

That was how the Muslims were able to enter Pagalu-

ngan. It was based on an agreement between my father

and Amay Kugaw.

In the 1980s, the Manobos started returning to their com-

munities and demanded the return of their lands. This time,

the Moro refused to vacate as agreed and insisted that the land

was already theirs. Thus, the Manobos sought the help of their

Timuay who thereupon went to Amay Kugao and reminded him

about their original agreement. The Moro commander assured

the Timuay that he would act on the problem. But the Moro

families stayed.



Timuay Damasco continued to recall the following:

In those days, many returning Manobos had no lands

on which they could live on. Without lands to till, they

were plunged to di# cult conditions. Some had almost

nothing to eat and had to ask for food from the Muslims

who were then benefi ting from their lands. My father

asked the Muslims to leave the area, but they refused.

So my father told one of his aides, “since they refuse to

leave, it might be worthwhile to ask the Muslims there

to share their income, even if not on a fi xed percentage,

so that those who returned have something to live on.”

The Muslims verbally agreed to share their income

from harvests. But during harvest time they refused to

give share as agreed. When the Manobos insisted on

their share, the Moro occupants brandished their ar-

malite rifl es. With that, we started to fear for our lives.

We realized that the Muslims did not have any inten-

tions of vacating the lands, and that it was not possible

to recover our land. Because of these, some of us de-

cided it was better to mortgage lands if we wish to ben-

efi t from our rights. Eventually, some of us accepted

carabaos as mortgage payment; others agreed to one

carabao in exchange for eight to ten hectares of land.

Others were left with no option but to accept a carabao

as payment because the Muslims would not agree that

they just mortgage their land.

During the 2000 “All-out-War,” Kimadzil became a battle-

ground between the military and the MILF which had one camp

established there. A military detachment was also set up in

the area. A series of mortar shelling was directed to the MILF

camp. The Moro armed groups suspected the Manobos of having

sought military assistance. The Moros accused the Manobos of

instigating the military o) ensive.87

There had been casualties su) ered by both communities as

they became participants in the war. But one particular encoun-

ter became devastating for the Manobos. It took place after a

tactical retreat from Kibayaw camp by the MILF. The following

day, with a strength of 300-combatants, they were poised to

retake the Kilabao area where the military has put up a detach-

ment. They reportedly attacked the Manobos. They open fi red at

Timuay Damasco.

According to Timuay Damasco:

The Muslims started attacking us in 1999 and became

successive. At one point, they invaded our area which

at that time was deserted because some of us evacu-

ated. I accompanied my people to evacuation areas.

Each time I left, I was confi dent the Muslims would

not harm us because I had been one of them.

At that time war was raging in Kayumangon and

Taginting. But we did not evacuate because I thought

I had infl uence among the Muslims. At that time, we

hesitated to leave because our corn crops had just

started maturing. If we evacuate, where would we get

money for food? It was noon, about the same time the

Moro rebels were said to come to consult with me. The



military prepared for combat right at my front yard.

They set up M60 artillery. I told them not to do harm

because I did not want our village to be in the fi ring

line. I told them our village had been very peaceful.

They tortured and killed some of us, including my

nephew and fi rst cousin. They killed them not by in-

fl icting a wound. They tortured them. My cousin’s eyes

were swollen, his head was soft as a ball. They pulled

his nails o) and hanged him in a coconut tree. It was

very painful. They spilt blood on the very place that

gave them means for living.88

When the military made a subsequent operation here,

the Muslims were forced to leave. When they left, we

returned here in Barangay Kimadzil.

When there were no more encounters between the AFP

and the MILF, and the Manobos were in control of Barangay

Kimadzil, they allowed the Moro to return to their original occu-

pied areas located in the fi rst kilometer that Timuay Pedro gave

them. But they refused to allow the Moro to reoccupy the second

kilometer stretch and the areas in Sitio Kilabaw areas.

According to Timuay Damasco, the Manobos’ refusal to the

return of the Moro is “because they attacked us, broke our good

relations. They attacked us so that they could take over this

place. We can’t say they were out to grab our properties; we had

none of those, except our lands.”

This prohibition is in e* ect up to the present. To prevent a

repeat of the experience with the Moro, the Manobos came up

with a policy of registration which people go through when they

want to enter the territory for livelihood and other purposes. Af-

ter proper screening, entrants are allowed to stay as long as they

follow the Manobo tribe’s policies of unity and understanding.

For the Manobos, the solution to the confl ict is quite simple.

They may undergo a process of reconciliation with the Moro

group to the extent of allowing them to return to the fi rst

kilometer stretch originally given to them. But, as a measure of

preventing occurrence of painful experiences, the Moros may no

longer return to their lands beyond the fi rst kilometer area. As

far as they are concerned, they are willing to commit to history

the atrocities the Moros committed against them because these

were a result of the war at that time.

The Manobos have started doing things toward confl ict reso-

lution. One of these was a meeting that took place the previous

year. Timuay Damasco met with Kumander Kineg, the fi rst after

a long estrangement. According to Timuay Damasco, Kumander

Kineg apologized for the e* ects of the war. He said he was just

carrying orders.

Timuay Damasco did not specifi cally accept apology. He told

Kumander Kineg that he was thankful for his e* ort which made

possible a dialogue where the Manobos could express their hurt.

He said goodness is what is more valuable; the Manobos are

attracted to this, not on wrongdoing. The only problem, he told

Kineg was that the Manobos had lost their trust in the Moros.

With that, the meeting ended. As of February 2009, no succeed-

ing meetings were held.



Chronology of Events according to the Moro

Community

In the 1960s, Datu Pedro Ampalid, the Timuay of Carmen,

Cotabato and its neighboring areas was a respected leader by

both Moro and Manobos. He was appointed as a Datu by then

Governor of the undivided empire Province of Cotabato, Datu

Udtog Matalam. As datu, he was tasked to be the protector of the

Moro in his territory. He loved the Moro and considered them

friends.89 He entered into agreement with a Moro leader and his

descendants to occupy a portion of their territory. Led by Antig

Abang, a Magauindanaon from nearby Barangay Kibayaw, the

fi rst batch of about 20 families moved to Barangay Kimadzil.90

Soon after, upon the invitation of Datu Pedro, relatives of

Antig Abang followed him. But at that time the Moros were

afraid of the so-called Ilaga members who had been sighted to

still roam Central Mindanao, including Carmen. According to

Kumander Iskak, the spokesperson for the Moro community:

At that time, there was no one who can act as guarantor

for the entry of the Moro except Datu Ampalid. People

were then still afraid of the presence of the Ilaga. Also

at that time, we saw some natives who were among the

Ilaga. If you are not accompanied by a native, you can-

not guarantee the safety of Muslims. And Datu Pedro,

because of his being an authority, wielded infl uence

among the natives. He guaranteed the Maguindanaos’

safety. He escorted the second batch of about 86 (all

from Bgy. Kibayao and Kasapian) Moro families who

entered the Manobo territory.91

The arrival caused the increased number of Moro people in

the area. Because of this, the Manobo chieftain set boundaries

where the Moros can occupy. The boundaries enclosed a stretch

of land between the Matama and Upian Creeks, measuring

about one kilometer parallel to the Muleta River going toward

the hills. The area was soon known as Sitio Pagalungan.

The third batch of Moro evacuees were from Maguindanao

and Sultan Kudarat. They sought refuge among their relatives

living at the vicinity of Barangay Kimadzil. The MNLF leader in

the area, Makaiber Inalang -also known as Amay Kugaw- negoti-

ated with Datu Pedro to accommodate more evacuees into Paga-

lungan. Because of Datu Pedro’s generosity, they were permitted

to enter Pagalungan. Datu Pedro gave an additional kilometer to

the land he had allocated for the Moros.92

Pagalungan at that time, even if unoccupied and covered with

cogon, already have Manobo claimants. The proof of claim was

what was called “kawalis” (inheritance or rights over property).

Some Moros bought these from the Manobos, some for P3, 000,

others in exchange of a carabao. Other Moros also acquired

lands in Sitio Kilabaw where the Manobos were concentrated.

When Timuay Pedro died in 1992, his son Damasco took on

his functions. Kumander Iskak describes the relationship that

ensued between the Moro entrants and the Manobos as follows:

There were no unresolved disputes between the Moros

and the Manobos. We lived in absolute harmony and

peace. All of us looked upon Damasco as our datu. He



was recognized as an elder. He resolved disputes which

were not complicated, not violent, such as marital dis-

putes, and brawls. When a Moro and a Manobo fi gure in

a confl ict, Datu Damasco and I were tasked to resolve it.

We used the process of resolving disputes according to

tradition and according to the MILF system. At that

time, Datu Damasco was not yet elected kagawad. He

was a ranking member of the MILF.93 We join each oth-

ers’ activities and celebrations. There were intermar-

riages between the two groups. There were no segre-

gation in dwellings; Moro and Manobos’ houses were

built close to each other.

During the all-out-war of 2000, MILF combatants

passed by Pagalungan from Muleta on their way to

their camp at Kilabaw. This made the Manobos sus-

pect that we sided with the MILF. At that time, there

was no chance to explain because of the security condi-

tion. We were also afraid to go to the Manobo area be-

cause the Manobos were identifi ed with government.

Among them were CAFGU members who were targets

of MILF men. They believed they fought at the side of

government by acting as military guides.94

In one episode of fi ghting, MILF combatants shot at someone

seen inside the tent set up by the Marines. It later turned out

that it was Datu Damasco. In another episode, the nephew of

Datu Damasco was shot and killed right after the Marines were

heard to have left the area.

The following are Kumander Iskak’s account of the

incidents:95

If only I saw Damasco, I would not have shot him. I

was not able to see that it was Damasco who was inside

and emerged from the tent set up by the Marines.

The killing of Damasco’s nephew was another case

of “missing” (a case of mistaken identity or “friendly

fi re”). His name was Bebot Ampalid. He was shot

near our mosque. When the Marines left, we went to

the area. My troops mistook him for a Marine. He was

shot from afar; visibility was poor due to morning dew

and tall cogon. When we left, we set fi re to the cogon

grass. We just did not recognize him clearly.

The Moros left their occupied areas in Barangay Kimadzil due

to the subsequent military operations that threatened their lives.

They did not want to be caught in the crossfi re. They crossed the

river Muleta to Sitio Bala, about seven kms from Pagalungan.96

When relative peace returned to Carmen, the Moros did not

attempt to return to Kimadzil. Up to the present, they stayed

clear of Manobos’ paths for fear of worsening the confl ict between

them. They were also waiting for word from the MILF leadership

on their next moves. Meanwhile, they make a living from their

relatives’ farms and other forms of income-generation.97

For the confl ict to be resolved, the Moros believe that “jus-

tice” must be in place. According to them, justice is achieved

when the problem of mutual accusation, i.e. Moros siding with

MILF and Manobos becoming CAFGUs, is clarifi ed and the

search for solutions to achieve peace is undertaken.98 One way of



achieving justice is to conduct meetings to discuss what hap-

pened and to restore mutual respect.

The other more important way is for Timuay Damasco and

Kumander Kineg to sit down and talk. Whatever results from

their talk, the Moros will abide by. They will abide by the deci-

sion because they trust their leaders know what is best for them.

A peaceful solution is top in the agenda in these talks, as far as

the Moros are concerned. They are less concerned about how

things will be run politically.

The Moros have been very grateful that there are events

happening pointing toward the track of justice. They are quick

to enumerate these events, foremost of which is the free move-

ment of their and Manobo tribe members. Though they admit

more substantial results are yet to be achieved, they are optimis-

tic about these positive activities. According to the Moro, there

is a local negotiation initiated by Datu Damasco and is held

under very strict confi dentiality.99 The Moros suppose that Datu

Damasco prefers that the negotiations not be divulged to the

public because he is a government o" cial. He is apprehensive of

the government’s reaction when they fi nd out he is doing nego-

tiations with the MILF on his own. He is supposed to also avoid

unwanted interventions from the politicians and traditional

leaders who have vested interests.

The negotiations are being facilitated by leaders of the Moro

and Manobos. Initial reports indicate that Datu Damasco also

has expressed openness with the return of the Moro. He has done

so in his pronouncements before the go-betweens such as Ku-

mander Bungalos, a Manobo timuay in another town. Together

with Kumander Bungalos, Kumander Kineg acts as facilitator to

settle the gap between the tribes. Datu Damasco has also pro-

nounced that when the negotiations are completed, he will re-

turn land to the Moro and present occupants will leave, provided

that the returning Moros promise not to disturb the peace.

The Moro are enthusiastically waiting for the outcome of the

talks. At times, they fi nd it a slow-moving. Because of this, they

welcome assistance from civil society groups who could speed

up the process.

Parties’ Perspectives on their Land Rights

The Manobo tribe’s claim to their ancestral lands in Carmen

is well recognized. By this, the Manobo people hold ownership

of the lands within its territory. They control the people who

would enter it. If needed, they will defend with their lives, the

integrity of their tribe and territory.100

The Moros claim ownership of the lands they have occupied

inside the Manobo territory because these were given to them

by the Manobo leader at least forty years ago. They argue that

aside from the tribe grant, the area in Pagalungan is classifi ed as

public land. As regards land beyond the Pagalungan area, they

claim that these had been acquired through mortgage or direct

sales transactions. They support this claim with documents duly

signed by Manobo sellers and mortgagors.101

Because they are legal owners of these lands, they believe it

is fair to be allowed to return and evict the squatters who they

heard are presently occupying their lands.



STORY 5A Land Confl ict between Two Moro Families

Background

This case is a land dispute between Moros over a parcel of

land known as Lot 352, PLS-700104 located in an area now said

to be covered by either Barangay Damacling, Municipality of

Paglat, Province of Maguindanao, or by Barangay Popoyon,

Municipality of Tulunan, Province of North Cotabato. These

areas are located within the so-called old Empire Province

of Cotabato, which is presently divided into fi ve provinces of

Cotabato, Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat and South Cotabato.

The Cotabato Empire is the traditional home of Maguinda-

nao sultanates and the Maguindanaon people who experienced

rapid marginalization and displacement of Moros and other

indigenous peoples on their own lands as a result of large scale

movement of the population105 accomplished through a series of

government resettlement programs beginning 1913 through the

1970s. The programs attracted thousands of settlers who were

either sponsored by the government or who came on their own.

While classic cases of land problems faced by the Moros of

Central Mindanao generally involve displacement from or dis-

possession of traditional landholdings as a result of the occupa-

tion of the settlers on their ancestral lands, this case illustrates

how a land confl ict could arise even between two Moro groups

belonging to the same tribe. Their land dispute arose after the

two groups both experienced displacement from their lands as

a result of war in the 1970’s waged by Moro rebel groups against

the government. The case will also illustrate their spiritual, cul-

tural and social practices and concept on land ownership. The

case study also documents how the confl ict was amicably settled

through a dispute resolution process, applying customary and

Islamic laws on land ownership, with tribal elders and datus

playing a signifi cant role in dispute settlement.

The successful resolution and speedy disposition of the case

entitled “Heirs of Pasicaman Rajahbuayan versus Datu Bagum-

bayan Abpet, et. al” lodged at the Department of Environment

and Natural Resources of the Autonomous Region of Muslim

Mindanao was amicably settled through the initial intervention

of the local government unit of Paglat and the mediation confer-

ences conducted by the DENR using combined confl ict resolu-

tion strategies - customary practices, Islamic principles and

DENR rules - on land disposition, sealed with a written compro-

mise agreement.

The Parties

Heirs of Pasicaman Rajahbuayan

The heirs of Pasicaman Rajahbuayan are Maguindanaon who

claim that they and their ancestors have openly, continuously

and pacifi cally occupied Lot 352 since time immemorial until



they were compelled to fl ee the area during the 1970s war in

Mindanao.

Bai Kusan is the granddaughter of Sultan sa Malasila and

the great grand daughter of the Sultan sa Damacling. Based on

the Maguindanaon tarsilan (genealogy), Sultan Solaiman the

Sultan of Malasila married Bai Tonina, daughter of Sultan sa

Damacling. They had a daughter named Bai Dayang and a son

named Pasicaman.

Bai Dayang Rajahbuayan then married her fi rst cousin Datu

Ampatuan Pasicaman. Bai Dayang had a daughter named Bai

Ulat, the mother of Bai Kusan. Bai Sarifa Rajahbuayan, daughter

of Bai Kusan, who now represents the heirs of Rajahbuayan in

this case, Sarip Rajahbuayan Tambungalan (Bai Kusan’s cousin)

and his daughter Pay Tambungalan Dangalao are signatories to

the Compromise Agreement signed between the heirs and the

heirs of Datu Bagumbayan Abpet.

The heirs knew of the respondents, Datu Bagumbayan et.al.

to be Maguindanaons who are mostly based in Buluan and

whom they claim to have never stayed on nor occupied the

disputed land. They believe that the respondents are related to

Congressman Datu Mangelen Luminog by a, nity.

Heirs of Datu Bagumbayan Abpet

The respondents were the stepbrothers/sisters and relatives of

Datu Conte Mangelen, a former Speaker of the Lupong Tagapag-

paganap ng Pook (LTP)106, Region XII. He was once appointed

Mayor of the Municipality of Paglat by former Governor Nur

Misuari and is a nephew of former Congressman Datu Luminog

Mangelen. The heirs claim that Datu Mangelen was born in and

is a native of Damacling.

Specifi cally, the names of the respondents to the DENR case

were Guiaplos Limba, Aleben T. Limba, Abdul Maguid Limba,

Teng Bagumbayan, Guiamila Jumuad, Monera Edza Limba, Tito

L. Bagumbayan, Tongtong Limba, Buat Abpet, Hana Bagum-

bayan, Datu Bagumbayan Abpet and Datu Puti Patadon whose

names appear in the Subdivision Plan Lot 352, PLS-700 pre-

pared for Datu Bagumbayan Abpet, et. al. on a survey conducted

on May 3 to May 11, 1961 by Engr. Lucilo Nazareth; the survey

was allegedly approved on October 13, 1982 by Sultan A.P. Lim-

bona for the Director of Lands and was later referred to as the

alleged approved Survey Plan CSD-12-002473-D.

Datu Mohammadali Mangelen, son of Datu Conte Mangelen,

acted as the representative and, as authorized by Datu Guiaplos

Limba, signatory to the Memorandum of Agreement between

the parties on November 6, 2006, through the assistance of

DENR. He claims that his ancestors occupied the land prob-

ably as early as 1940s. He said he grew up in Damacling. When

he was only 12-15 years old during the war in the 1970s, at the

time when most original inhabitants were fl eeing to escape the

war, his father, Datu Conte Mangelen, went into hiding and his

family evacuated Damacling.

Only two of the representatives of respondents (Datu Ali

Limba and Salem Bagumbayan) present during the interview107

admitted to have lived in Lot 352. Datu Ali averred that he

stayed on the land from 1960 to 1976, “during the revolt”. Salem

Bagumbayan said he lived there only for two years from 1959 to



1961 because he had to leave to study high school. However, Datu

Ali and Salem frequently visited the place. Datu Ali claimed to

have several tenants who stay in the land. Many of the respon-

dents’ relatives live within the area.

The respondents alleged that they have never met nor seen

any of the heirs of Pasicaman Rajahbuayan. They knew the

Rajahbuayans to be Maguindanaon natives of Tulunan. The

only Rajahbuayan they knew is a certain Datu Bedis. They are

not related to the Rajahbuayans. Asked if they are related to the

Sultan of Malasila, the alleged ancestor of the Rajahbuayans, they

argued that Malasila is very far from Damacling, where Lot 352 is

situated.

They describe Bai Sarifa Rajahbuayan as someone who is

interested in having lands sold through VOS (Voluntary O, er

to Sell)108 under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program

(CARP) of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). They

say that if only ocular inspection can be conducted, the actual

occupants of the area can testify that the land is not owned by

the Rajahbuayans but owned by Datu Conte Mangelen and Datu

Bagumbayan.

Chronology of Events According to the Parties

Chronology of Events according to the Rajahbuayan Heirs

According to the heirs of Rajahbuayan, subject Lot 352, PLS-700

is situated at Barangay Damacling, Municipality of Buluan, Pro-

vince of Cotabato (based on Sketch Plan of Lot 352 PLS-700 as

prepared for the Heirs of Pasicaman Rajahbuayan, and approved

on April 30, 1971).

The heirs say that the area was formerly covered by Sitio Malas-

ila, which later became part of Barangay Damacling and is now

presently known to be covered by Barangay Popoyon, Munici-

pality of Tulunan, Province of Cotabato. It consists of between

300 to 400 hectares of land, and lies between Dungos, Ungos

River and Damacling creek.

The heirs describe Lot 352 as inhabited by Moros who are

all related to the heirs of Pasicaman Rajahbuayan. Barangay

Popoyon’s population however is now comprised of approxi-

mately 60% settlers from Luzon and the Visayas and around

40% Moros. They claim to have inherited a number of parcels of

land including Lot 352 situated in areas now covered by

Barangay Popoyon, Municipality of Paglat from Bai Kusan’s

mother, Bai Ulat, who in turn inherited them from her ances-

tors, the Sultans of Malasila and Damacling.

The complainants deem that they are the rightful owners

of Lot 352 by virtue of being descendants and rightful succes-

sors of the said Sultans, which the tarsilan will show. Moreover,

they are in possession of Patent Applications on the land. They

claim that they are prior occupants and inhabitants of Lot 352

who were only compelled to fl ee when settlers came and the war

broke out in the 1970s.

Bai Kusan Rajahbuayan’s accounts

Bai Kusan claims that she was born, grew up and had her mar-

riage rites performed in Lot 352. She alleges that most of the co-

conut, mango and libi trees found in Lot 352 were planted by her

father and grandfather. Her grandfather the Sultan sa Malasila

also used to have tobacco and corn plantations in the place.



According to her, during the old days, the extent of people’s

land ownership then were identifi ed and delineated through

traditional landmarks such as rivers, various perennial trees,

and other traditional boundaries. Bai Kusan also had planted

on the land a number of silal or buri and coconut trees herself.

A mosque but destroyed during the war was also built by her

grandfather in the area. Several tampat, tombs of members of

Maguindanaon royalty, whom she claims to be her ancestors,

can also be found within the adjacent Sitio Malasila. The Sultan

of Malasila was also buried there.

She recalls that when she was still a child, she saw how the

Moros lived peacefully in Malasila where Barrio Damacling

belonged (now Barangay Popoyon). Her parents, ancestors and

the Moros then used to barter trade at Dulawan, Datu Piang

and Cotabato City out of their corn and coconut harvests. They

would exchange corn for fi sh fry (uyap). It used to take them

seven days by boat to reach Cotabato to trade.

She says that the idea that her ancestors had ever sold lands

to others was unthinkable. Due perhaps to the abundance of

land, she said that any Moro, usually their relatives and her

grandfather’s sakop (constituents/vassals) could occupy and

cultivate any unoccupied land but always with the permission

of the Datus or Sultan. Lot 352 and their neighboring/adjacent

lands which is now part of Baragay Popoyon were inhabited only

by Moros and a few Manobo highlanders. Today, majority of the

population of Barangay Popoyon are settlers.

Bai Kusan recounts that she would never forget the fi rst time

she saw the bisaya109(settlers) in the early 1950s when she was

only about seven years old. She was so frightened by the fi rst

sight of big numbers of bisaya who fi rst appeared in Barangay

Popoyon one night time when her father was still out trading at

other towns. She recalled that out of fear, her mother refused to

sleep. To feign an excuse not to sleep, she started weaving a mat,

and fi nished by the crack of dawn one big enough to cover their

entire home. Her scared Moro yaya (nanny) had removed a few

pieces of wood planks of their house and instructed her that

should anything happen that night, she should escape through

one such opening, run as fast as she could, and leave her to face

the settlers alone.

The presence of settlers caused them fear and anxiety because

they could not communicate with and understand each other.

It was their fi rst time to hear a strange language being spoken.

When her father arrived, he tried to drive away the settlers, but

the settlers refused to leave. The situation grew more tension-

fi lled when one day, her father tried to build a new “tabungos”

(warehouse) for their rice. The settlers would forcibly topple

down and destroy each and every post he put up. They could not

understand why they were being prevented by the settlers from

constructing any improvement on their own land.

Their family found out later that the settlers came into the

area because a prominent Maguindanaon Congressman com-

manded them to enter the area, something that was without

their knowledge and consent. He is said to be a Representative

of the undivided Cotabato Province during 1950’s. The settlers

were allegedly brought in by the said politician to muster more

votes during elections110. From then on, Bai Kusan witnessed



with great fear and pain how the settlers continually grew in

numbers and occupied their lands in Barrio Damacling.

When the settlers continued to increase in number and

dominate the area, they decided to gradually leave the area and

transfer to Malasila. They only went to Lot 352 in the morn-

ing to plant, returning at night time to Malasila (now named

Sitio La Esperanza), staying with relatives at the big ancestral

home of the Sultan sa Malasila called Galawang, a traditional

Maguindanaon house built without nails and pieced together

with strands of rattan. She described that it was like a mansion

for them because it was a very huge house. From then on, their

visits to their land became less and less frequent.

When Barangay Popoyon and the Municipality of Paglat

became virtually “no man’s land” in 1973111, the heirs eventually

evacuated their lands, including Lot 352 and stayed at Lutayan.

Bai Sarifa Rajahbuayan’s accounts

According to Bai Sarifa, when relative peace was experienced by

the people of Paglat and peace and development initiatives (for

instance, construction of rehabilitation centers, declaration of

the area as one of the peace and development communities) be-

gan around the year 2002, the heirs of Pasicaman Rajahbuayan

started gathering their documents on their lands.

The heirs of Pasicaman Rajahbuayan assert that Lot 352 was

surveyed in the name of the heirs and that the said survey was ap-

proved on April 30, 1971.112 A hand written note in the sketch plan

indicates “approved PLS 700”. Bapa Sarip Pasicaman Tambun-

galan, Bai Kusan’s cousin, said that they were able to apply for a

Patent over Lot 352 through the government’s National Resettle-

ment and Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA) program.113 A

Moro teacher named Sendad prodded and guided them to title

their land. They were encouraged to have their land surveyed

because it would only cost them a peseta or twenty cents.

In 2006, the heirs thought of disposing some of their lands

through Voluntary O1 er to Sell (VOS) under the Comprehensive

Agrarian Reform program implemented by the Department of

Agrarian Reform. While securing the necessary papers for the

VOS, they discovered from the Assessor’s O2 ce of Tulunan that

Lot 352 was also being claimed by a certain Datu Bagumbayan

Abpet and his heirs.

They started to a conduct a series of inquiries with the of-

fi ce of the Community Environment and Natural Resources

O2 ce (CENRO) and the Provincial Environment and Natural

Resources O2 ce (PENRO) of the Department of Environment

and Natural Resources –ARMM to validate these claims. How-

ever, they found out from the said o2 ces that Datu Bagumbayan

Abpet et.al. have no Patent applications nor any records per-

taining to CSD-12-002473-D. CENRO-ARMM also certifi ed

that CSD-12-002473-D “situated at Brgy. Damacling, Buluan,

Maguindanao” is not among the approved survey plan that has

been recorded in its o2 ce 114.

They then proceeded to the Register of Deeds of Cotabato. To

their surprise, they found out that some portions of Lot 352 had

already been titled in 1984 allegedly by members or relatives by

a2 nity of Datu Bagumbayan Abpet, and that the following titles

were issued:



1. Original Certifi cate of Title No.P- 05222 (Free Patent No.

599388) dated February 13, 1984. Title issued in the name

of Abdul Maguid Limba married to Malepedted Abdulgani

over a parcel of land situated in the Barrio of Damacling,

Municipality of Buluan, Province of Maguindanao, Philip-

pines, containing an area of Two Hundred Twenty Seven

Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty (227,960) Sq.m. with

the following notes: “That the lot is equivalent to lot 370,

a portion of Lot 352, PLS-700 and is covered by F.P.A No.

(XII-11) 00258. Signed by Eufronio Bautista, Chief, Surveys

Division for the Director of Lands and by Silverio V. Tagbo,

Land Examiner.”

2. Original Certifi cate of Title No. 05221 (Free Patent No.

599357). Title issued in the name of Aleben T. Limba mar-

ried to Salama Wanday over a parcel of land situated in the

Barrio of Damacling, Municipality of Buluan, Province of

Maguindanao, Philippines, containing an area of 22 hec-

tares, 79 ares and 60 centares. (Last page missing).

3. Original Certifi cate of Title No. P-05224 (Free Patent No.

599355) dated February 22, 1984. Title issued in the name

of Teng Bagumbayan married to Mila J. Bagumbayan over a

parcel of land situated in the Barrio of Damacling, Munici-

pality of Buluan, Province of Maguindanao, Philippines,

containing an area of Two Hundred Twenty Seven Thou-

sand Nine Hundred and Sixty One (227,961) sq.m. with

the following notes: “That the lot is equivalent to lot 359,

a portion of Lot 352, PLS-700 and is covered by F.P.A No.

(XII-11) 00257 signed by Eufronio Bautista, Chief, Surveys

Division for the Director of Lands, and by Silverio V. Tagbo,

Land Examiner.” Title contains an annotation of encum-

brance that it has been mortgaged to Land Bank of the

Philippines for the sum of P140, 652.61; Date of Document :

July 8, 1991; Date of Registration: July 18, 1991.

The heirs knew of Datu Bagumbayan Abpet and his group

only as Maguindanaons based in the Municipality of Buluan

and that Congressman Datu Luminog Mangelen, a predecessor

of Congressman Salipada Pendatun, is related by a5 nity to the

respondents. They claimed that they never saw Abpet and his

group to have stayed nor occupied Lot 352.

The heirs surmised that while they were probably at evacu-

ation in Lutayan, the respondents Datu Bagumbayan Abpet et.

al were able to subdivide Lot 352 and succeeded in having it

surveyed, securing an approved Survey Plan in their favor and

issued with CSD 12-002473-D for Lot No. 352, PLS-700.

Thereafter, they sought the help of the incumbent Mayor of

the Municipality of Paglat, Abdulrakim Langkuno who imme-

diately investigated and consulted seven members of Paglat’s

council of elders as to the real ownership of the disputed land.

They say that the Mayor was able to trace back the history of

the land and its ownership to the Sultans, whom he also claims

to be his relatives or forefathers. Based on the elders’ accounts,

he determined that the heirs of Pasicaman Rajahbuayans have

customary rights and legitimate claims over Lot 352. After dis-

cussing with the heirs their problem, Mayor Langkuno referred

them to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources

– ARMM (DENR-ARMM).115



On September 16, 2006, the heirs fi led a complaint before

DENR-ARMM against Datu Bagumbayan Abpet et. al and

prayed for the cancellation of CSD No. 12-002473-D. Bai Sarifa

Rajahbuayan, as representative of the heirs, alleged in the com-

plaint that they were surprised by the fact that Lot 352 which is

the property of their grandfather Pasicaman Rajahbuayan was

in 1982 subdivided by Bagumbayan Abpet et.al, without their

knowledge, into 13 lots, three of which were already titled in

the names of Guiaplos Limba, Abdulmaguid Limba, and Hadji

Moner Limba. She also asked for the cancellation of the subdivi-

sion plan and titles issued to the Abpets.116

The DENR-ARMM’s Legal A0 airs O1 ce conducted an inves-

tigation and ocular inspection of the area117. Through a series of

mediation conferences conducted by Director Brahim Andamen

of the Land Management Bureau between the Rajahbuayan

heirs and Bagumbayan Abpet et.al, represented by Bai Sarifa

Rajahbuayan and Datu Guiaplos Limba, respectively, the parties

were able to arrive at an extrajudicial settlement.

On November 6, 2006, through the assistance of the DENR-

ARMM, the heirs, represented by Bai Sarifa Rajahbuayan fi nally

entered into a Compromise Agreement with Datu Bagumbayan,

et.al, represented by Datu Guiaplos Limba et.al, and Datu Mo-

hammadali Mangelen. In the agreement, the Abpets committed

to relinquish any rights over eight of the 13 untitled lots in favor

of the Heirs of Pasicaman Rajahbuayan, along with their Free

Patent applications.

In the agreement, the parties have acknowledged the fact

that Lot 352 PLS-700 which is located at Paglat, Maguindanao

had been subdivided into 13 lots, under CSD 12-002473-D in the

name of Datu Bagumbayan Abpet et. al. The Abpets committed

to relinquish their rights and Patents covering portions of the

following eight untitled lots allocated to the following members

of their clan, namely:

1. Lot 352-C in the name of Guiamila Jumuad with an area

of 227,961 sq.m.

2. Lot 352-D in the name of H. Monera Edza Limba with an

area of 227,960 sq.m.

3. Lot 352-E in the name of Tito L. Bagumbayan with an


4. Lot 352-F in the name of Tongtong Limba with an area of

227,960 sq.m.

5. Lot 352-G in the name of Buat Abpet with an area of

227,960 sq.m.

6. Lot 352-J in the name of Hana Bagumbayan with an area

of 227,960 sq.m.

7. Lot 352-H in the name of Datu Bagumbayan Abpet with

an area of 227,960 sq.m.

8. Lot 352-M in the name of Datu Puti Patadon with an


Since their confl ict has already been successfully resolved

through the use of customs and traditions, they believe that in-

stitutions like the Local Governance Support Program in ARMM

(LGSPA) will help in resolving similar confl icts by documenting

their methods of confl ict resolution.



Chronology of Events according to the Heirs of Datu

Bagumbayan Abpet

According to the heirs of Datu Bagumbayan Abpet, Lot 352 is an

alienable and disposable public land. The respondents described

Lot 352 as rich and fertile land. During summer and low tide,

rice and corn may be planted thereon and during wet season or

high tide, fi sh, such as tilapia, alwan, and pupuyu are abundant.

Some coconut trees and permanent trees are found on the land.

Datu Ali said he asked his tenants and his relatives to plant libi

trees in some of the areas as early as 1954. Libi trees are said to

grow and spread fast but when it dies, people in the area would

replant them.

The land is situated within Barangay Damacling, Municipa-

lity of Paglat and within the vicinity of the Liguasan Marsh. It is

inhabited by a purely Muslim populace, majority of whom are

relatives of Datu Bagumbayan Abpet and tenants of Datu Ali

Limba. Barangay Popoyon is di+ erent from Barangay Damacling,

and is not part of the Municipality of Paglat. It however serves as

boundary between the Municipalities of Tulunan and Paglat.

The respondents explained that they are owners of the land

based on customary and government land laws. They claim that

Datu Conte Mangelen is a native of Damacling. They already

fi led Free Patent Applications and even have titled some por-

tions of the lands. Some of them were able to stay in Lot 352 and

introduced several improvements, planting coconut and libi

trees thereon. They say that the old libi trees were fi rst planted

by their ancestors. The area is now inhabited by their relatives

and tenants. They stressed that if only ocular inspection will

be conducted, the actual occupants of the area can testify that

the land is not owned by the Rajahbuayans but by Datu Conte

Mangelen and Datu Bagumbayan Abpet.

According to Datu Mohammadali Mangelen, his ancestors

occupied the land probably as early as 1940s. He himself grew

up in Damacling. When he was only 12-15 years old during the

war in the 1970s, at the time when most original inhabitants

were fl eeing to escape the war, his father, Datu Conte Mangelen,

went into hiding and his family evacuated in Damacling.

Datu Salem Bagumbayan accounts

Sometime in 1961, LTP Speaker Datu Conte Mangelen gathered

his step brothers, Datu Bagumbayan Abpet and Datu Guiaplos

Limba (both deceased), and his nephew, Salem Bagumbayan

(son of Datu Bagumbayan Abpet) to discuss matters pertaining

to lands in Barangay Damacling they contend to own. He told

the three to facilitate the titling of their lands and have the lands

subdivided among his brothers and sisters.

Salem Bagumbayan narrated that his father, Datu Bagum-

bayan Abpet, then had Lot 352 surveyed, subdividing it among

his brothers and sisters. The subdivision plan was successfully

approved in favor of Datu Bagumbayan Abpet, et. al. In the

subdivision survey, Lot 352 was apportioned among the fol-

lowing brothers and sisters/relatives of Datu Conte Mangelen:

1) Guiamila Jumuad (deceased); 2) H. Monera Edza Limba;

3) Tito L. Bagumbayan (deceased); 4)Tongtong Limba; 5)

Buat Abpet; 6) Hana Bagumbayan; 7) Datu Bagumbayan Abpet

(deceased); 8) Datu Puti Patadon; 9) Abdul Limba; 10) Maguid

Limba (deceased); 11 Ali Limba; 12) Ben Limba (deceased); 13)

Teng Bagumbayan.


)


Datu Bagumbayan, along with Datu Guiaplos Limba, a former

assessor of Buluan, fi led the application for Free Patents for Lots

351 and Lot 352 at the DENR-Cotabato o( ce. They admitted

however that they could no longer fi nd records of these applica-

tions because the old DENR XII o( ce located at the Provincial

Capitol Hill in Cotabato City was burned down sometime in 2000.

He says that some portions of the lands were eventually titled

in the name of Abdul Maguid Limba, Aliben Limba and Teng

Bagumbayan. They explained that the lots allocated to Abdul

and Maguid were covered by one title and registered in the name

of Abdul Maguid Limba, while those allocated to Ali and Ben was

titled in the name of Aliben Limba.

In 2006, while they were processing their papers for the

titling of Lot 352 and adjacent Lot 351, DENR XII, CENRO

Kidapawan informed them that a certain Mohammad Rajah-

buayan came to their o( ce and claimed that he and the other

heirs of Pasicaman Rajahbuayan are the owners of Lot 352.

DENR XII, CENRO Kidapawan invited them to their o( ce

regarding the claim of the Rajahbuayan heirs over Lot 352. They

were also informed by the said o( ce of the mediation confer-

ences held at DENR-ARMM. Ultimately, they decided to set

aside their application over Lot 352 and instead focus on pro-

cessing the titling of Lot 351.

When DENR XII informed them in 2006 about the claim of

the Rajahbuayan heirs over Lot 352, Salem Bagumbayan went to

validate the claims and the records presented by Bai Sarifa at the

various o( ces of DENR XII (PENRO and CENRO) and the local

government of Tulunan. He and other members of their family

tried to invite the Rajahbuayan heirs to discuss their di. erences,

but they (the heirs) never came.

He wonders why the Rajahbuayan heirs are claiming that Lot

352 measures 400 hectares when the land actually measures 296

hectares only. They also wondered why the Rajahbuayans laid

claims over the land only now when their elders Datu Bagumba-

yan Abpet and Datu Conte Mangelen have already passed away.

Although they respect the agreement signed by their elders, they

are sad that the heirs disregarded their invitations for a dialogue.

Datu Mohammadali Mangelen’s Accounts

Datu Mohamadali Mangelen described their fi rst encounter

with the heirs of Rajahbuayan Pasicaman as full of tension.

However, after a series of mediation conferences facilitated by

Land Management Director Brahim Andamen and Legal O( cer

Nasser Talipasan of DENR-ARMM, the discussion proceeded

smoothly and was conducted professionally until they reached

an agreement.

The respondents admitted that they were informed by Datu

Guiaplos Ali that a complaint was fi led against them by the heirs

at the DENR-ARMM. They were likewise told that as their

representative, the son of Datu Conte, Datu Ali Mangelen, had

caused the signing of a Compromise Agreement in November 6,

2006 after a series of mediation conferences facilitated by the

DENR-ARMM in order to settle amicably the land dispute.

Datu Conte (now deceased) was said to have greatly infl u-

enced the respondents’ and their representative’s decision to



settle the confl ict amicably, and although all the respondents

were not physically present during the mediation conferences

and the actual signing, they respected the decision of Datu

Guiaplos and Datu Conte Mangelen on the settlement because

they were leaders and respected elders of the family.

They all agreed that they will respect and abide with the

commitment of Datu Guiaplos Limba based on the Compromise

Agreement he entered into with the heirs of Pasicaman Raja-

hbuayan—whether the agreement is favorable to them or not.

They have entrusted everything and all their rights to enter into

agreement with Datu Guiaplos Limba.

Datu Salem hopes that other Moro facing land confl icts will

resolve their problem the same way that they did it—with due

respect to the elders and Moro traditional method of settling

land disputes. Based on their customs and traditions, elders are

given the fi nal say on major decisions. Majority of the Bagum-

bayan Abpet heirs believed that had the deceased not signed the

greement, the land dispute between them will continue indefi -

nitely, which they would not like to see happen.

The local government units of Paglat, Buluan and General

Salipada K. Pendatun (GSKP) were believed to be of great help

in resolving the confl ict. The o) cials of the said LGUs, particu-

larly their Mayors and Barangay Chairpersons, can testify and

trace who are the real owners of the land.

Parties’ Perspective on their Land Rights

The Rajahbuayan heirs believe that under customary laws and

based on tarsilan, they are the rightful owners of Lot 352 be-

cause they are the descendants of the Sultan of Malasila. They

own the land by inheritance. Under government policies, the

improvements that they and their ancestors introduced to the

land, their prior occupation, patent applications and tax decla-

rations are also evidences of their rightful ownership and claims

on the land.

The 69-year old Bai Kusan Rajahbuayan recalled that during

the old days, any Moro, usually their relatives and her grandfa-

ther’s sakop (constituents/vassals) could occupy and cultivate

any unoccupied land in their area but always with the permis-

sion of the Datus or Sultan. She said her ancestors never prac-

ticed selling lands to anybody. The extent of people’s land own-

ership then were identifi ed and delineated through traditional

landmarks such as rivers, various permanent trees planted and

other traditional boundaries. Titling of land was not a practice.

Land is passed on from generation to generation.

The heirs recount that Moros really have di) culty titling

their land and reconciling customary laws and government poli-

cies on lands. Asked why Moros including them failed to con-

summate titling their lands, she and the other heirs enumerated

the following as the reasons:

1. Moros are very trustful of others. They are confi dent that

the lands will not be taken by others. They believed that

people who will take their lands by stealth will be cursed

by Allah.

2. Moros’ ignorance of the law and procedures on land

titling.

3. Moros are very generous in giving lands to their relatives.


a


4. Moros usually entrust the recording and titling of their

lands to their relatives or some educated members of the

community, even to the extent of asking them to register

their lands in the names of the said persons

When Mayor Langkuno intervened to resolve the confl ict,

the Mayor consulted the elders in the area and refered to their

tarsilan to trace and determine the rightful owners of Lot 352.

In the series of mediation conferences conducted by Director

Brahim Andamen of Land Management Bureau and Nasser

Talipasan, Chief of the Legal A( airs O) ce of the DENR, they

and the respondents were encouraged to settle the confl ict using

combined Islamic principles, customary laws, “tarsilan” and

government rules on land dispositions. They believe that the

use of Islamic laws, customs and traditions helped them in the

speedy resolution of the land confl ict. The agreement was later

reduced into writing which was notarized by a lawyer.

The oldest respondent, Datu Ali Limba, 55 years old, de-

scribed the Moro customary or system of land ownership in the

following manner: customary law is that the ownership of the

land will pertain to the one who was born on the land, occu-

pied the land for years until he/she reached his/her old age and

planted or introduced improvements/land marks to the land

such as acacia, coconut or libi. Credible witnesses will have these

facts and such ownership supported.

The land will then be transferred to his/her descendants

from generation to generation. Claiming land ownership when

one knows he/she is not the rightful owner is sacrilegious. Datu

Ali Limba said that he knew many impostors and pretenders to

be owners of a certain land who already died of hypertension

because they were cursed by Allah. Majority of the respondents

shared the views of Datu Ali.

Datus and elders play a major in the traditional way of set-

tling land disputes. Consultation is done before a decision is

made. Many will be called to testify and the parties will be given

a chance to defend themselves. It is not executed similar to

a trial or litigation but conducted through mediation or arbi-

tration facilitated by the Datus and the elders. In Damacling,

confl ict is usually submitted to the eldest and most respected

person in the area. That person will summon the parties to ap-

pear for mediation or consultation because there was no Lupong

Tagapamayapa ng Barangay118 then.

When the Datu or the elders reach their decision, the parties

will then immediately accede. During the old days, the Datus and

elders were very honest and impartial because they know that

they were always accountable to God for every wrong and unjust

decision. They let justice and the best interest of many prevail.

From his perspective, Chief Talipasan said that the success-

ful resolution of the case is due to their combined use of confl ict

resolution strategies: Islamic practices integrated in the DENR’s

manual of disposition of case, customary practices and com-

ing up with a written and notarized agreement. If the parties

are both Moro, they usually apply the Code of Muslim Personal

Laws (CMPL).

Both parties respected the decision because of these strate-

gies. An Islamic belief stresses the importance of the speedy


.


disposition of a case, as justice delayed would be justice denied.

Had they strictly implemented the government technical proce-

dure, Talipasan said it would have resulted to enumerable delays

and case backlog.119

Majority of the respondents believe that the traditional mode

of settling land dispute is better than the present and modern

system of resolution carried out by the government. Hence, they

think that the traditional mode of settling dispute is still the best

way of resolving confl icts. Datu Salem considers Shariah to be

the best law because everything is complete in the Holy Qur’an

where Shariah is based. The respondents respected every words

of the late Datu Conte. When he said that they had to enter into

settlement, they readily acceded to him. Based on their customs

and traditions, elders are respected and given the fi nal say on

major decisions.

Datu Salem hopes that other Moro facing land confl icts will

resolve their problem the same way that they did it – with due

respects to the elders and Moro traditional methods of settling

land disputes.

The respondents believed that policies of the government

worsened the land confl ict. Because of the VOS under the CARP,

many fi xers and land speculators would go to Bureau of Lands,

check the records of lands and fi nd out if there are registered

applicants over the lands.

There are instances when records of the Bureau of Lands will

show that there are no pending applications when in fact, said

lands already have pending applications at other DENR o* ces

and are already in the process of titling. In the Rajahbuayan

case for instance, a subdivision survey and Lot Data computa-

tion from DENR have been approved as early as 1961, but an-

other claimant have appeared and presented purported o* cial

documents.

Salem said that the VOS program in Maguindanao has been

suspended now because of the many fi xers and speculators who

made business by securing double titles over a certain land,

and that even areas under water were sold through VOS. He

shared that since the VOS operation had been suspended in

Maguindanao areas, some would opt to have the lands situated

there applied with patents and titles in North Cotabato in order

that they can dispose of their lands through this government

program.



Endnotes

Story 1: A Land Dispute between Moro Claimants and Christian Settlers in

Impao, Isulan, Sultan Kudarat

1 Key interview with Nasser and Rakman Talipasan, Sept. 11, 2008 in Cotabato City.

2 http://lmb.denr.gov.ph/history.html3 Draft Case Study “Talipasan Impao vs. Isulan Group Settlement subdivision. fn: Isulan_Talipasan Impao_Matrix on Case Study Questions – submitted by Atty Nerissa Dalig.

4

3, 2006, and to the DENR XII RED dated October 16, 2006.5

6 Letter of Rakman Talipasan to DENR XII RED dated Oct. 16, 2006.7 Interview with Nasser and Rakman Talipasan September 11, 2008.8 Ibid.9 Ibid.10 Ibid.11 Letter of Rakman Talipasan, loc. cit.12 Letter of Rakman Talipasan to DENR XII RED dated October 16, 2006.13 Letter of Rakman to DENR RED dated March 12, 2007.14 Remark made by Tyrone Rosal, current barangay secretary during FGD on

Jan. 12, 2009.15 Barangay Impao Profi le.16 Ibid.17 Ibid.18 Ibid.19 Ibid.20 Most of the key personnel who were privy to the actions of the DENR

related to the tenurial developments in Lot 26 SWO 17260 are no longer connected with the agency. Although the DENR, as a matter of policy does not purge records as other government agencies every fi ve years do, the DENR Region XII had relocated at least twice, making retrieval of documents a daunting task. The reconstruction of this section is based on the available documents and informal interviews made.

21 Decision by the Bureau of Lands Manila on the subject complaint fi led by Bagua Mama Impao and 33 others against S.A. V-2445 (E-V-1134) of Caram Development Company, Inc., dated Jan. 04, 1988..

22 The Decision cited “Bagua Mama and 33 Others” at the subject heading as claimant-complainants. These were not mentioned in the Batasang Pam-bansa resolution that DENR acted upon.

23 Decision by the Bureau of Lands Manila on the subject complaint fi led by Bagua Mama Impao and 33 others against S.A. V-2445 (E-V-1134) of Caram Development Company, Inc., dated Jan. 04, 1988.

24 Ibid.25 Transmittal of documents submitted on July 12, 1985 by Cipriano B. Catu-

dan.26 Ibid.27 Ibid.28 Report made on October 8, 1993 by Geroncio S. Sumogod, Special Investi-

gator I and Macalaba Hadjitaib, Deputy Public Land Inspector.29 Group Settlement Subdivision.30 Report by Sumogod and Hadjitaib, ibid.31 Memorandum for RTD DENR XII by CENRO Abraham D. Lominog on Octo-

ber 12, 1993.32 Memorandum for RTD DENR XII by PENRO Cipriano B. Catudan on October

13, 1993.33 Interview with Nasser Talipasan at Grand Menseng Hotel, Dec. 15, 2008.34 Ibid.35 Ibid.36 Ibid.37 A doctrine that grants the inherent power and authority of the state to pro-

tect persons who are legally unable to act on their own behalf. This authority is intended to further the public trust, safeguard the general and economic welfare of a state's residents, protect residents from illegal practices, and as-sure that the benefi ts of federal law are not denied to the general population. States may also invoke parens patriae to protect interests such as the health, comfort, and welfare of the people, interstate water rights, and the general economy of the state. For a state to have standing to sue under the doctrine, it must be more than a nominal party without a real interest of its own and must articulate an interest apart from the interests of particular private par-ties. http://www.answers.com/topic/parens-patriae.

Story 2: A Land Dispute between Moro Ancestral Land’s Claimants and a

Christian Settler in Barangay Rangeban, Midsayap, Cotabato

38 “Local Confl ict Resolution.” Presentation of Col. Julieto D. Ando GSC (INF) PA, ACUCS for CMO, U7, EASTMINCOM, AFP, delivered Eden Nature Park, 21-24 July 2009 during the occasion of the Training on Confl ict Resolution for LGUs.

39 “Kin of MILF members are natives of the barangays while Bantay Bayan members are protecting the interests of settlers who claim ownership of lands there,” according to MILF spokesperson Eid Kabalu as cited by Mind-


Letter of Rakman Talipasan addressed to the DENR Secretary dated October

Ibid.


anews in “Hundreds fl ee as Army, militia clash with MILF in Midsayap.” 27 January 2007.

40 “A four-day armed confrontation forced around 6,000 people to evacuate as both parties were reported to have massed troops, shelled mortals and launched air strikes, Bantay Ceasefi re said in its January 29 report.” Source: “Civilian peace group: Land dispute caused Midsayap skirmishes.” Mind-anews. 31 July 2007.

41 JMAT is composed of representatives from GRP CCCH, MILF CCCH, IMT and Bantay Ceasefi re.

42 Ando, see above (footnote 1)43 Information gathered from a Focus Group Discussion conducted on 29 De-

cember 2008 at Dag’s Resto in Midsayap, North Cotabato. Present were the following: Abdulrakman Lanson, Mamasalalang Panansang, Edsel Digan-dang, Evelyn Lanson, Barangay Chair Gardoke Lanson, Mosiba O. Ulogan, Lintang Kusa, and Site Lanson.)

44 Interview, Gardoke Lanson, 29 December 2008.45 Ando, (see footnote 1).46 Ibid. 47 Act No. 2874 Second Public Land Act in 1919 provides that “Non-Christians

or specifi cally “Moros and the wilds tribes” were only entitled up to 10 hect-ares while other people (settlers) Filipino allowable hectarage to apply for homestead up to 24 hectares.

48 Act No. 2874 Second Public Land Act in 1919 provides that “Non-Christians or specifi cally “Moros and the wilds tribes” were only entitled up to 10 hectares while other people (settlers) Filipino allowable hectarage to apply for homestead up to 24 hectares.

49 Ando, (see footnote 1).

Story 3: A Land Confl ict Between a Christian Academic Institution and a

Moro Family in Isulan, Sultan Kudarat

50 Court records refer to these lots as Lot 1 covered by TCT No 35550 (Akang heirs), measuring 9,653 sq m (.9653 hectares) and Lot 3, covered by TCT No 35549 (Akang heirs).

51 Citizen Military Training is mandated part of secondary school curriculum in the Philippines

52 Reversion, as defi ned by the Philippine Law Dictionary, means to overthrow; set aside; make void; annul; repeal; revoke; To change to the contrary, or to its former condition (Hilario v Hicks, 40 Phil 583). In this case, reversion would mean the revocation of the title issued to the heirs of Akang Simpal. Section 101 of the Public Lands Act vests only in the Solicitor General or the offi cer acting in his stead the authority to institute the action on behalf of the Republic for the cancellation of title and for reversion of homestead to

the Government. This provision was used by the RTC Judge in his ruling on Civil Case 922 as basis for saying that the PEEI had no standing to cause the cancellation of the titles obtained by the Akang heirs. Thus, the court ruled in favor of the Akangs as the owner on record on the disputed piece of land.

53 In 1951, the Board of Directors of the Land Settlement and Development Corporation or LASEDECO started the opening of a settlement in an area formerly under the jurisdiction of the National Land Settlement Administra-tion (NLSA) as a reservation. The LASEDECO had surveyed and parceled out home and farm lots and constructed municipal and barrio roads and installed electrical light generators. It had brought in hundreds of farm tractors which uprooted big tress, cleared obstruction, plowed, cleaned and harrowed the wide stretches of the area. What was once a marshy and wild expanse inhabited by snakes, crocodiles, wild cattle, swine and deer had welcomed the fi rst sprouts of seedlings of corn and rice, thus blanketed the horizon in endless green. When a group of 72 World War II Veterans, led by Venancio Magbanua, Post Commander of Norala had come and settled in the area, on September 7, 1950, a Kalawag root crop used as food coloring was found out abundantly growing. Thus, the early settlers decided to call and register the settlement as “Kalawag Settlement District of LASEDECO”. The area comprising the town site covers approximately 400 hectares. (His-tory of Isulan, http://www.isulan.gov.ph, as seen on March 16,2009).

54 Civil Case 922 Judgment of German M. Malcampo, Regional Trial Court Judge, dated March 19, 2001, citing TSN pp. 27-28 May 3, 1999

55 The original loan amount was in the amount of P800,000. Additional loan amount was fi led using the Akang’s free patent, TCT 35549. on Lot 3, one of the two lots in question.

56 Transcription of Key Informant Interview of Bai Nelly Akang; interview con-ducted by Dr. Boy Kadil, Prof. Reydan Lacson, and Tony Aba, April 27, 2008 in Isulan, Sultan Kudarat

57 This name is associated with the history of Isulan itself. Based on oral histories, at the start of the 19th century, there was a battle between two Sultans. A sul-tanate in the adjacent town of Maganoy under Sultan Utto with a strong army decided to attack a small principality under the leadership of Sultan Mofac. Outnumbered by twenty to one, Sultan Mofac, astride a white horse, decided to fi ght with his men notwithstanding the odds against him. The battle cry of Sultan Mofac was”Isu-Silan” which, when translated means “they are there, advance”. This intrepid although suicidal show of force and determination so impressed Sultan Utto that in order to save lives on both sides, he decided to resolve the issue by negotiation, placing Sultan Mofac and his principal-ity under his protection. Isulan then derived its name from “Isu-Silan” which also means by analog “PROGRESS”. In the passage of time “Isu-Silan” was shortened to Isulan which is its present adopted name. The Christian Settlers would have preferred to decide the name of their new town by referendum.


.

.

.

.


However, a revered and feared Muslim leader, Datu Kudanding Camsa, had decided to name it by himself. (History of Isulan, http://www.isulan.gov.ph as seen March 16, 2009). Thus, Bai Nelly Akang’s family on her father’s side and on her husband’s side are both respected in the Muslim world

58 Sometimes referred to as Datu Kudanding by parties.59 Case write-up written sometime 2008 entitled “Barker vs. Bai Nelly Akang-

Camsa” by Dr. Boy Kadil, previous researcher on this case contracted by the Local Governance Support Program in ARMM and the Kadtuntaya Founda-tion, Inc. It is assumed that the case write-up was based on interviews with the Akang family; however, as of this writing, transcription of these inter-views were not available to the case writer and were deemed lost.

60 Transcription of Key Informant Interview of Mr. Jabe Barker; interview conducted by Dr. Boy Kadil, Prof. Reydan Lacson, and Tony Aba on April 25, 2008 in Isulan, Sultan Kudarat.

61 The government of President Manuel Quezon established the Rice and Corn Production Administration in 1950 as part of its bid to promote rice and corn production. In the same year, the RCPA and the Agricultural Machinery and Equipment Corporation, whose function was to supply farmers with farm machinery and equipment, were merged to form the LASEDECO. The new agency became the implementor of the resettlement program of the govern-ment. By the end of its mandate, it had resettled 1,500 families (Jubair, 1999)

62 Also referred to as Datu Kudanding in some accounts. 63 Commonwealth Act 691 (October 1945) provides for the free distribution,

under certain conditions, of lots of 24 hectares each of agricultural land of the public domain. Under this Act, any citizen of the Philippines or of the United States of America more than eighteen years of age and who does not own more than twenty-four hectares of land in the Philippines may apply for the cultivation of and obtain free title of a lot of agricultural land of the public domain, which is neither occupied nor reserved for public purposes, having an area of twenty-four hectares. Republic Act No.1160 (June, 1954) or the NARRA program, further implements the free distribution of agricultural lands of the public domain as provided for in Commonwealth Act 691. It abolished the Land Settlement and Development Corporation (LASEDECO) and created in its place the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Admin-istration (NARRA). Approximately 20,500 families of former members of the Hukbo ng Bayan Laban sa Hapon (Hukbalahap or People’s Anti-Japanese Army) were resettled from 1954 to 1963. Under this Act, all assets of the LASEDECO, including farm machinery and equipment, shall be turned over to a Board of Liquidators (BOL) to be sold at public auction, the proceeds to be used in paying off its accounts with commercial fi rms and for loan to settlers or cooperative organizations of settlers. RA 1160’s Sec 10 provision on the Board of Liquidators was later amended by Presidential Decree 671 (March 1975) to read: “assets of the LASEDECO shall be turned over to the Board of

Liquidators and the lands (whose awards, allocations and/or assignments have been cancelled and/or annulled) shall be disposed of and awarded through negotiated sale to qualifi ed applicants, payable for a period of not more than fi ve (5) years. This Act was the basis for the Miscellaneous Sales Applications, through a negotiated sale with the BOL, by the PEEI over the school site and the adjacent land used for its playground and CMT grounds. Indeed, their Miscellaneous Sales Applications had been issued favorable recommendations by the BOL. The BOL however does not award land titles, but merely recommend issuance of titles to land under its jurisdiction.

64 Court records indicate that this actually happened in December 1996.65 Exhibit TT-24, as cirted by RTC Judge Macalampong in his ruling on Case

922, page 50. 66 Testimony of Mayor Conrado Buencamino, p.22 of the Judgement on Case

NO 922 penned by RTC Judge German Malcampo67 Evidences presented in court show that PEEI offered to buy this four hect-

ares of land for P2,500. Then Mayor of Isulan, Datu Sema Ampatuan, had counter offered the amount of P3,000 in a letter dated January 10, 1961. The counter offer was accepted by PEEI, hence a Deed of Conditional Sale was executed on June 14, 1961 between the Municipal Government of Isulan, represented by Acting Mayor Dionision Lotilla as VENDOR, and the PEEI, represented by Jared Barker, Sr. as VENDEE. As stipulated in said Deed of Conditional Sale, upon fulfi llment of the purchase price of the said four hect-ares parcel of land, a defi nite or absolute deed of sale would be executed

68 PEEI Board Resolution No. 1 Series of 1982, which provides that: “ …….the Board of Trustees of the PEEI to authorizes Mr. Petronio Cagas to apply for and in his behalf and in his name the title for a three hectare lot subject of Resolution No. 19 Series of 1974 of the Municipality of Isulan, Sultan Kudarat”

69 Testimony of Alicia Flores, Records Offi cer of the DENR-CENRO, Tacurong Sultan Kudarat, pp 27-30, of the Judgment on Case No. 922 penned by RTC Judge German Malacampo.

70 Board of Liquidators Resolution No 282 Series of 1989. The total amount to be paid was P15,539.99, paid up on June 22, 1989.

71 Exhibits Q, Q-1, Q-2, and Q-3, Exhibit II-4, as testifi ed by Alicia Flores, cited in the Judgment penned by RTC Judge Malacampo on Case 922.

72 Both lots are part of Lot No 50, SWO-17260, which were subdivided into three lots, Lots 1,2, and 3 containing a total area of 23,648 square meters; Lot 2 is a road lot.

73 Exhibit II, Exhibit TT of Case 922 as cited by Judge Macalampong in his rul-ing dated March 19, 2001

74 A public land application on a parcel of land cannot be assigned a number if there is an existing land application over the same parcel of land, unless there is a quitclaim deed or transfer of right over the said parcel of land in favor of the applicant.


.


75 Testimony of Account Offi cer Rene Gallaga, PCIB, as cited by Judge Ma-calampong in his ruling on Case 922.

76 Exhibit 10-PCIBank, as cited by RTC Judge Macalampong in his ruling on Case 922.

77 Ibid.78 TSN p 47 January 27, 2000 as cited by RTC Judge Macalampong in his rul-

ing on Case 922, p 45. 79 Judgment penned by RTC Judge Macalampong on Civil Case 922 penned

March 19,2001, page 19. 80 Section 8 of the 1973 Philippine Constitution states that “all lands of public

domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fi sheries, wildlife, and other natural resources of the Phil-ippines belong to the State. With the exception of agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential, or resettlement lands of the public domain, natural resources shall not be alienated, and no license, concession, or lease for the exploration, or utilization of any of the natural resources shall be granted for a period exceeding twenty-fi ve years…” Section 3 of the 1987 Philip-pine Constitution states that “Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands. Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-fi ve years, renewable for not more than twenty-fi ve years….” These Constitutional provisions were used by Baguindali Karim, LMS Chief of the DENR, as bases for not acting on the Miscellaneous Sales Application of the PEEI, and in recommending for the approval of the Free Patent Application of the heirs of Akang Simpal instead. These provisions were also cited by the Regional Trial Court as bases in its ruling on Civil Case 922 in saying that 1) the Municipality of Isulan’s Resolution No. 19, dated August 20, 1974, was unconstitutional, and therefore null and void; 2) the Municipality of Isulan had no authority to dispose of/distribute public lands; such authority was vested on the Bureau of Lands; 3) PEEI had not estab-lished ownership over the lands before the effectivity of Constitution

81 Judgment penned by RTC Judge Macalampong on Civil Case 922 penned March 19,2001, page 51.

82 Ibi .d83 Ibid, pp. 53-54.

Story 4: A Land Confl ict Case between Moros and the Aromanon Manobo

Tribe in Carmen, Cotabato

84 Documents from ancestral land claim of Aromanon Sinumburan Tindeg Bansa, a Manobo group based in Barangay Aroman, Carmen, Cotabato.

85 Agency Profi le, http://ncip.gov.ph/agency_profi ledetail.php?id=1.86 Interview with Timuay Damasco held in Sitio Kilabaw, Barangay Kimadzil on

Feb. 3, 2009.87 Ibid.88 Interview with Timuay Damasco.89 Karl Gaspar documented the story of Tabunaway Mamalu, an oral tradi-

tion among the T’bolis, Teduray. Kalangan, Arumanen- Manobo in his book “Mapagpakamalinawon.” The story tells of the origins of the original inhabit-ants of Mindanao as having a common ancestry in the brothers Tabunaway and Mamalu. Tabunaway converted to Islam while Mamalu continued with indigenous religious practices. It sheds light on the closeness and harmo-nious co-existence of the Lumad and Moro Peoples. It also explains the territories respected by both peoples. (Br. Karl Gaspar, Mapagkamalinawon, published in 2002, Alternate Forum for Research in Mindanao, Catholic Relief Services/Philippines (Davao City, Philippines, Manila, Philippines).

90 Interview with Kumander Iskak on February 21, 2009 in undisclosed MILF stronghold.

91 Ibid.92 Draft case writeup by Atty. Sanz.93 Interview with Kumander Iskak.94 Focus Group Discussion with Moros conducted on February 3, 2009 in

Poblacion Carmen, Cotabato.95 Interview with Kumander Iskak96 FGD with Moros.97 Ibid.98 FGD with Moros.99 Interview with Kumander Iskak.100 Interview with Timuay Damasco.101 FGD with Moros.102 Interview with Timuay Damasco.103 FGD with Moros.104 Based on the Sketch Plan of Lot 352. PLS-700 as prepared for the Heirs

of Pasicaman Rajahbuayan and Datu Bagumbayan Abpet et.al , the land situated in Barrio of Damacling (now) Popoyon,, Municipality of Bu-luan (now) Tulunana, , Province of Cotabato (now) North Cotabato and containing an area of 2,963,483 square meters while based on the Sketch Plan as prepared for the Datu Bagumbayan Abpet et. al,, the land is situated in Barrio District of Damacling, Municipality of Buluan, Maguindanao and containing an area of 2,963,483 square meters

105 As shown by the 1918, 1930, 1970 Censuses graphically illustrating popula-tion shifts in Cotabato as cited by Prof. Rody Rodil in his presentation entitled, “Finding New Paths to Peace: Ancestral Domain and Moro Self-Determina-tion” at the Forum sponsored by the United States Institute of Peace, Asian Institute of Management Conference Center, Makati City, June 19, 2007.

106 The defunct Legislative Assembly for autonomous regions under the Mar-


.


cos government. Region IX and Region XII in southern Philippines then each had a Sangguniang Pampook, composed of twenty-seven members and includes seventeen representatives elected from the different provinces and cities of each region, and a sectoral representative each from among the youth, agricultural workers, and non-agricultural workers (industrial labor) of each region whose qualifi cations and disqualifi cations are the same as Members of the Batasang Pambansa (National Assembly).

107 The following parties and heirs were present during the focus group discus-sion conducted by Atty. Nerissa O. Dalig and Esmeralda Simpal on January 6, 2009 at BJN Restaurant, Buluan , Maguindanao: Salem Bagumbayan, 59 years old; Benzayb Limba; Malipedted Limba , 56 yrs old; Kalima Limba (Wife of late Ben Limba), 52 years old; Datuali Limba, 55 years old; Rahib Limba; Yasser Bagumbayan; Hji. Mohammad Ali Limba; Mokammad Ibrahim (Datu Tero or Abdul Limba’s representative); Hji. Nasser Limba, 33 years old; Rocky Salik (Tito Bagumbayan’s uncle); Hji. Suharto Amad, Field Coordinator and relative of the Bagumbayan Abpet.

108 Land holdings covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) in the Philippines are acquired through different modes of acquisi-tion, among which are Compulsory Acquisition (CA) and Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS). CA is the mandatory acquisition of all agricultural lands for distribution to qualifi ed agrarian reform benefi ciaries. VOS is a scheme wherein landowners come forward and voluntarily offer their agricultural lands for coverage. In any of these modes, landowners receive just compen-sation from the government, depending on the result of the land valuation.

109 Most Indigenous Peoples in Mindanao, including Moros usually called set-tlers either from Luzon and Visayas, “bisaya”.

110 From this, it can be inferred that the entry of the settlers took place some-time in the 1950’s when Luminog Mangelen’s political career began.

111 As recounted on Peace and Development Community Popoyon profi le of Act for Peace Program, United Nations Development Programme.

112 See sketch plan of Lot 352, Pls-700 as prepared for the heirs of Pasicaman Rajahbuayan represented by Sarifa Rajahbuayan

113 NARRA was created on June 18, 1954 pursuant to RA 1160 to help speed up the free distribution of agricultural lands of the public domain to landless tenants and farm workers who are citizens of the Philippines and to encour-age migration to sparsely populated regions pursuant to the fundamental policy of the government to promote the level of production, employment and living standards of the people.

In March 1949, the Rice and Corn Production Administration (RCPA) was created by the government to promote rice and corn production. It was also involved in resettlement. It was responsible for opening Buluan in Cotabato, and Maramag and Wao at the Bukidnon-Lanao border. Before the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA) came into exis-

tence in 1954 by virtue of RA 1160, the short-lived Land Settlement Develop-ment Administration or LASEDECO took over from National Land Settlement Authority and RCPA. It was able to open Tacurong, Isulan, Bagumbayan, part of Buluan, Sultan sa Barongis and Ampatuan, all in Cotabato. (Rodil, Q&A) ( Source: p. 105, B.R. Rodil, A Story of Mindanao and Sulu in Question and Answer). NARRA administered a total of twenty-three resettlement areas: nine were in Mindanao; one in Palawan; fi ve in the Visayas; one in Mindoro; seven in mainland Luzon. (Source:B.R. Rodil, A Story of Mindanao and Sulu in Question and Answer, Publisher: MINCODE, Copyright 2003 by B.R. Rodil and MINCODEPART VII,The Displacement and Dispossession of the Lumad and the Moro people on their own lands. Page 105:) In 1963, it had already resettled 20,500 families at the cost of P44.5 million (Salah Jubair, Bangsamoro: A Nation Under Endless Tyranny (Third edition, updated and expanded). Kuala Lumpur: IQ Marin Sdn Bhd ). When the Agricultural Land Reform Code was signed into law in August 1963, NARRA was replaced by the Land Authority. For the fi rst time, resettlement became part of the general program of the land reform. Under the Land Authority, about 2,400 settlers were resettled from 1963 to 1971. (Source: Castaneda, as cited in the book of Rad Silva, page 45-46 of Two Hills of the Same land).

114 Based on the Certifi cation issued on September 1, 2006, by Datu Nguda Guiampa, Al-Hadj, CENRO 1B, Shariff Aguak, Maguindanao stating that as far as its offi ce is concerned, CSD-12-002473-D situated at Brgy. Damacling, Buluan, Maguindanao is not among the approved survey plan nor no available records has been fi led involving the said property of land. Based also on the Certifi cation issued on September 5, 2006 by Abdillah N. Akmad, OIC-PENR Offi cer, Offi ce of the Prov’l Environment & Natural Resources, Maguindanao Province that the approved Survey Plan CSD-12-002473-D, situated at Brgy. Damacling, Buluan, Maguindanao has no available records on fi le at its of-fi ce…The certifi cation was issued upon the verbal request of Board Member Yasser Ampatuan of the 2nd District of Maguindanao.

115 Based on KII with Nasrudin Talipasan, Chief , Legal Affairs Division of DENR-ARMM on May 16,2008, and Mayor Langkuno on June 3, 2008 at the Paglat Municipal Hall.

116 See Letter complaint of Bai Sarifa P. Rajahbuayan fi led with the DENR-ARMM dated September 19, 2006

117 See Investigation Reports of Nasser Talipasan dated October 5, 2006 and Datu Nguda Guiampaca, CENRO 1B, Sharriff Aguak, Maguindanao dated October 16, 2006.

118 Village mediation system, as provided for by the Local Government Code of 1991.

119 Interview by Atty. Charina Sanz with Nasser Talipasan at his offi ce on May 16, 2008


.

.

150

Positioning Analysis of Land Confl ict Cases

The objective of positioning theory, as a

social psychological theory, is to surface

and understand the underlying mindsets

or perspectives of the sources of written

and verbal statements. The process is to

identify and analyze the apparent story-

line, positioning of self and other people,

and intent of the statements. Doing this, one will be able to un-

derstand the confl ict from the perspectives of all parties, which

is critical in bringing the parties to confl ict resolution.

It was from this perspective of positioning theory that the

fi ve land confl ict stories in Section 4 were gathered and pre-

sented. Section 4 presents the chronology of events related to

the confl ict from the perspective of each party. The description

of the versions of the parties on the chronology of the confl icts

ends with an analysis of the converging and diverging points of

the storylines. The intent of this analysis is not to further fuel up

the confl ict, but to make people aware of where the confl ict or

divergence is coming from. Though the ultimate outcome of this

analysis rests with the parties themselves and their supporters,

the desired outcome is the kind of understanding that moves

towards transformation of mindsets and relationships, such

as a participatory non-violent reconciliatory reconstruction of

storylines and positioning. This principle is further discussed in

the concluding section of this paper.

Section 5 expands the discussion of the land confl ict cases in

Section 4 by providing a positioning analysis of the statements

of the parties during the interviews. All of the land confl icts in

Section 4 involve a Moro individual or group as one of the par-

ties. In three of these confl icts, the other parties are Christian

settlers. In another confl ict, located in Carmen, North Cotabato,

the other party is an indigenous people. In the fourth confl ict,

located in Paglat, Maguindanao, both parties are Moro. The

analysis of these land confl icts are presented here in three parts.

The fi rst part focuses on two cases where the parties opposed

to the Moros are Christian settlers; the second part is on a land



confl ict between Moro and indigenous people; and the third part

presents a land confl ict where both parties are Moro.

Land Confl icts between Moro Families and Christian

Settlers

A review of the transcripts of interviews and focus group discus-

sions of the Muslim and Christian parties of the land confl icts in

Isulan, Sultan Kudarat and Midsayap, Cotabato pointed to three

common themes. These are: a) Moro/settlers’ (depending on

who was speaking) rights to disputed land; b) causes of the con-

fl ict; and c) confl ict resolution e+ orts or measures. We merged

the fi rst two themes as the statements related to these appeared

to project the same underlying storyline. In all, we gathered two

sets of positioning patterns.

Theme 1: Rights to disputed land and causes of the

confl ict

Table 9 presents the contrasting storylines and positioning

of the Moro and Christian settlers in two land confl icts with

regard to their land claims and perspectives on the causes of the

confl ict.

The positioning analysis shows two contrasting storylines – i.e.,

Moros’ reclaiming of their ancestral lands on one hand, and

Christian settlers’ defense of their occupied lands on the other

hand. In these storylines, the parties position the other party in

a negative light. Expected is the rejection of these positions. The

positioning analysis also shows that the underlying meaning or

intentions are not confl icting and can be reconciled.

From Moros’ StatementsFrom Christian Settlers’

Statements

Storylines Muslims were forced by war to leave their ancestral lands. Dur-ing the war, the Christian settlers occupied Muslims’ lands and connived with the government to title lands to their (Christian set-tlers) names. Muslims protested against this action of Chris-tians and the injustice done by government. Muslims are back to reclaim their ancestral lands from Christian settlers, and seek justice from government.

By developing the then-forested land, buying the land from Muslims, being its occupants for more than 20 years, and having secured land patents, Christian settlers are now the legal owners of subject lands. Muslims are only after the Christian settlers’ money and Muslims thought Christians do not have land titles over subject land, which was why Muslims are harassing Christian settlers to leave the land. Christian settlers will defend their land rights.

Position of Muslims in the Storyline

Rightful landowners Victims of Christians settlers’ deception and greed, and of government’s injustice;

IntrudersHarasser, interested in Christian settlers’ money

Position of Christians Squatters Deceptive

Rightful landownersHarassed by Muslims to leave occupied land

Intentions or Outcome Reparation of injustice (i.e., land dispossession) committed by Christian settlers and govern-ment to Moro

Clamor for Moros’ recognition of Christian settlers’ right to own land and to be considered as native inhabitants

Table 9Positioning Analysis of Statements of Moro and Christian Settlers on the

Causes of Confl ict in Midsayap and Isulan Land Dispute

Theme 2: Confl ict Resolution E% orts and Measures

The second positioning analysis, which was drawn from the

second common theme of the statements of Muslims and

Christian settlers, depicts the perspectives of the two parties on

how the confl ict should be resolved. Converging or compatible

meaning is interpreted from these storylines. Table 10 presents

a positioning analysis of the statements of both parties regard-

ing confl ict resolution.



From Moros’ StatementsFrom Christian Settlers’

Statements

Storylines To resolve the confl ict non-violently, Christian settlers should return Muslim lands, and should be compensated by the government; however, if the Christian settlers do not have other place to go, then Muslims and Christians should share lands and establish a climate of trust and understanding.

It was the government who urged Christian settlers, from Luzon and Visayas, to go to Mindanao and occupy lands. The government should resolve this land confl ict between Muslims and Christian settlers in accordance with law.

Position of Moro Benevolent landowners Victims of government resettle-ment program

Position of Christian settlers

Recipient of the benevolence of Muslim landowners; Entitled to receive compensation

Victims of government resettle-ment programs;

Intentions or Out-come

Declaration of disputed land as Muslim land, but openness to non-violent resolution of land confl ict

Demanding government action for the resolution of the land confl ict

Table 10Positioning Analysis of Statements of Muslims and Christian Settlers on

Confl ict Resolution in Midsayap and Isulan Land Disputes

In the above table, the storylines of both the Moro and Chris-

tian settlers are interpreted as projecting a message of openness

to non-violent confl ict resolution. However, if we review the

statements of the parties during the interviews, their state-

ments are more loaded with themes on the causes of the confl ict,

rather than with themes on the process of confl ict resolution.

This means that all of the parties tended to talk more about the

causes of the confl ict than on measures to resolve the confl ict.

This suggests a need to provide more stimuli to drive the parties

to talk more about confl ict resolution. This can be by providing

opportunities for sharing of confl ict resolution options between

and among parties of land confl ict cases in the communities.

Land Confl ict between Moros and Indigenous People

In the confl ict between Moro and the tribe, Ilianon Aromanen

Manobo, in Carmen, Cotabato, the Moro group is positioned

similarly as the Christian settlers of the two previous cases.

Here, the subject land is an ancestral land of the Manobo, whose

former leader allowed the Moro group to occupy some portions

of their land. Like the Moro in the land confl ict cases with the

Christian settlers, the Manobo tribe is now claiming back a por-

tion of their lands. This is however not because the Moro were

suspected of deceptively claiming landownership through land

titling as the Moro accused the Christian settlers in the two pre-

vious cases, but because the Moro allegedly attacked a Manobo

leader (son and successor of former leader) and killed his cousin

during an o' ensive of the Moro rebels against the Philippine

marines. The attacked Manobo leader thus accused the Moro of

lack of debt of gratitude. On the other hand, a Moro leader de-

scribed the incident as an accident and committed to respect the

authority of the Manobo leader as a tribal leader. Both expressed

openness to a peaceful resolution of the confl ict.

The following thematic and positioning analysis of the

utterances of the Manobo and Moro leaders during separate

interviews aimed to describe the appearing perspectives and

predisposition of both leaders on the confl ict during the time of

the interviews.

The statements of the Manobo leaders can be summarized

into eight themes. Of these themes, the most frequently men-

tioned was related to the Moro’s attack on the Manobo leader

and the killing of his cousin, and the betrayal felt by the Manobo.

The next two themes were about the events related to the



confl ict and the readiness of the Manobos to fi ght for their land

rights and protect themselves from the Moro. From these state-

ments, we inferred their storylines and positioning. The story-

line of the Manobo leader is centered on the attack of the Moro

rebels and the killing of his cousin as a betrayal of the trust and

generosity of the Manobos. In this storyline, the Manobo lea-

ders positioned themselves as the betrayed and aggrieved party,

and they positioned the Moro as villains and traitors. Along this

storyline, the e& ect or meaning of their action to claim back

their lands from the Moro was an expression of their hurt feel-

ings or grief, and their demand for reparation over the attack

and killing of his cousin.

On the other hand, the storyline of the Moro leaders was that

the confl ict was due to the 2000 all-out-war of the government

against the Moro and that the attack on the Manobo leader and

the killing of his cousin were not premeditated. In this storyline,

they positioned themselves as incapable of deliberately hurt-

ing the Manobos. They positioned the Manobos as their kin,

who they should not be at war with. They also positioned the

cousin of the Manobo leader as a victim of a mistaken identity.

Along this storyline and positioning, their statements about the

importance of their on-going negotiations, request for the as-

sistance of LGSPA for the success of the negotiations, and their

apprehensions on the possible e& ects of the interviews can be

best understood. The meaning or e& ect of all these actions is

their desire to re-establish peace with the Manobos.

Land Confl ict between Two Moro Clans

Presented here is a dispute between two Moro clans – the Rajah-

buayan clan and the heirs of Bagumbayan Abpet—over parcels of

land located in the boundary of Paglat, Maguindanao and Tulu-

nan, North Cotabato. This land confl ict is considered a resolved

case and is added in this research so as to provide a model of

land dispute resolution between and among the Moros.

Three factors moved the two Moro clans to resolve their

land confl ict amicably. First was the cost, in terms of money and

time, of bringing their case to the court. Some parcels of land

within the disputed area were already titled in the names of the

heirs of Bagumbayan Abpet, and the cancellation of these land

titles, which were adjudged to be fraudulent, based on evidences

of Rajahbuayan and testimonies of LGU o+ cials, would require

a court order; this may take years and even decades to reach.

Second is the idea that it would be better to lose a portion of

the land to other Moro parties rather than to lose the whole to

Christian settlers. It was not, however, clear in the discussion

how Christian settlers will have access to the land if one of the

Moro parties will lose the land case. Perhaps because of this, the

heirs of Bagumbayan contended that they would seek for the

prioritization of their relatives, rather than of Rajahbuayan, in

the listing of the benefi ciaries of the registration of their oc-

cupied lands under the ‘voluntary o& er to sell” (VOS) scheme

of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). They

understood, however, that the compromise agreement entered

into by their elders was a done deal. The third factor is related to

the latter, which is their respect for the decisions of their elders,

whether they agree or not with the provisions of the compro-

mise agreement.

From the interviews with representatives of the two par-

ties, we identifi ed some confl icting utterances that need to be


154Land Tenure Stories in Central Mindanao

worked out for the sustainability of the achieved agreements.

Table 11 presents a summary of the confl icting utterances of the

Themes From the Statements of Rajahbuayan Family From the Statements of Bagumbayan Heirs

Location of the disputed land Lot 352 is located at Barangay Popoyon, Tulunan, North Cotabato Lot 352 is located at Barangay Damacling, Paglat (formerly Buluan), Maguin-danao

Popoyon is different from Damacling, and is not part of Paglat. Popoyon is located at the boundary of Tulunan, North Cotabato, and Paglat, Maguindanao.

If there is overlap between Damacling and Popoyon, the overlap area is only around 10 to 20 hectares.

Conduct of ocular inspection DENR did ground inspection and consulted the elders in the community. Ocular inspection will show that land does not belong to Rajahbuayan. (This statement suggests that ocular inspection was not done and elders in the com-munity were not consulted.)

Knowledge of the Other Party

Bagumbayan clan is from Buluan, not from the contested land. Rajahbuayan clan is from Tuluan, far from the contested land.

Members of Rajahbuayan clan do not know any of Bagumbayan heirs. The Bagumbayan heirs know only one member of Rajahbuayan clan, Datu Bides.

Datu Luminog Mangelen, a predecessor of Datu Salipada Pendatun as congressman, is married to Bagumbayan Abpet. Bagumbayan may have been able to obtain titles on the land due to political infl uence of Datu Luminog.

During the war (disturbance), Rajahbuayan left the area, but they did not own land in the area.

Rajahbuayan also suspected the late Datu Guiaplos Limba and Salim of Bagumbayan clan, who are assessors, to have a hand in the titling of the land.

Size of land Land is 400 hectares, but only 225 hectares of this land is in the name of Bai Kusan. Lot 352 covers 296 hectares, not 410 hectares as claimed by Rajahbuayans.

Present condition of Lot 352 Present occupants are relatives (cousins) of Rajahbuayan. Present occupants are the Bagumbayan clan.

Basis of Land Claims Rajahbuayan were the occupants of disputed land, but they left the area long after Chris-tian settlers came in 1948 but long before the Ilaga came in 1972 (Sarifa said 1968); they were not clear on exact year they left the area.

Bagumbayan clan has been the occupants of Lot 352 since before the Japanese came in the 1940s; they temporarily left the area because of fl oods.

Rajahbuayan has supporting documents, e.g., 1971 approved land survey with Bai Kusan registered as survey claimant, attached to the land survey is free patent application of Bai Kusan, and LGU (Mayor and barangay chairperson certifi cation of correctness of claims of Rajahbuayan).

Bagumbayan clan developed the area and planted coconut trees, acacia, bam-boos, and other permanent trees. When there are no fl oods, they plant rice and corn in the area. They also catch fi sh in the Liguasan Marsh, which is part of Lot 352.

Mayor Langkuno of Tulunan, who is a relative of Rajahbuayan, testifi ed in favor of Rajah-buayan and issued certifi cation supporting Rajahbuayan.

Bagumbayan is in possession of a subdivision plan/map, and titles.

DENR Legal Counsel advised Rajahbuayan that they had a strong case because of con-vincing evidences.

Based on Tarsilah of elders, land belongs to Datu Kunti and not to Rajahbuayan.

Protests against Other Side's Claims

Land documents of Bagumbayan (e.g., subdivision plan/map, titles, Rajahbuayan's waiver of rights) are fabricated and did not pass through DENR. Subdivision plan was issued before the approval of PLS, and therefore was fake.

Why did the Rajahbuayan start to claim land only now, when the Bagumbayan elders have already died?

Compromise Agreement Bagumbayan will register three titled lands under VOS with Rajahbuayan as benefi ciary. Rajahbuayan will pay amortizations with the Land Bank.

13 lots with approved titles will go to Bagumbayan, and 8 lots with unapproved land titles will go to Rajahbuayan.

Rajahbuayan cannot claim the untitled lands, according to LMB Director Danny Andamen.

Table 11Confl icting Utterances of the Rajahbuayan Clan and Heirs of Bagumbayan Abpet

representatives of the two parties. Positioning analysis follows

this table.



From the confl icting statements of the two parties, contrast-

ing storylines can be drawn. The storyline of the heirs of Bagum-

bayan is that the Rajahbuayan has erroneously identifi ed their

occupied land as their (Rajahbuayan) claimed land, and that the

heirs of Bagumbayan can prove this if an ocular inspection is un-

dertaken. In this storyline, the heirs of Bagumbayan positioned

their selves as the rightful landowner, and they positioned the

Rajahbuayan clan as misguided, incorrect, and therefore, not the

owner of their occupied lands. Their expression of desire to re-

view the compromise agreement can therefore be taken to mean

their non-acceptance of the claims of Rajahbuayan. On the other

hand, the storyline of Rajahbuayan is that the Bagumbayan heirs

used their political connections to title their claimed lands.

Along this storyline, the Rajahbuayan positioned the Bagumba-

yan clan as holders of fraudulent land titles, and positioned their

selves as the rightful land claimants. Thus, their actions were

meant to position themselves as such.

The above confl icting utterances and contrasting storylines

necessitate a review of this land confl ict case through the con-

duct of a relocation survey, which will entail fi eld inspection,

and consultations with elders of the community to identify the

rightful claimants. There is also a need to review the contents of

the compromise agreement and to inform the heirs on its con-

tents and their implications.

The implications of these positioning analyses of these land

disputes are discussed in Section 7.


158

The Canadian Experience in the Resolution of Land Confl icts Involving Aboriginal People

Canada’s role in this study was to provide

examples of how land issues for Canadian

Aboriginal people are resolved. The

commonalities between Canada and

Mindanao are basic, experiential, spiritual

and cultural: communal ownership, a

belief that jurisdiction is held by the

land, oppression of one class of people over another, legislative

genocide, and the loss of land through direct government

intervention; all part and parcel of the legacy of colonization.

The experience of loss of land in Canada by all groupings of

original inhabitants is too large to detail in this paper. It is suf-

fi cient to say that Treaties have been broken, people relocated

against their will and land sold and/or taken without consent.

Some violence and rebellion have also resulted from these

violations.

There are generations of Aboriginal people who have main-

tained the struggle for recognition of land rights and the gover-

nance and jurisdiction necessarily attached to that. The struggle

of Aboriginal people to maintain ties to land and to maintain

the right to self-determination came at a cost. There have been

many infractions against their people, their families, their gov-

ernments, their institutions and their land. These infractions

are committed to enforce assimilation and divide families and

nations, and it has stopped or slowed the meaningful participa-

tion of many original inhabitants within Canadian society at

large. Discrimination at every level in Canada is alive and well.

Susceptibility to disease, something familiar to poverty in every

country, is higher for Aboriginal people than within other Cana-

dian demographics. Incarceration is more common than access

to education and their governments are often assumed to be

inferior and lack capacity for anything more than the most basic

administrative functions.



As well, the fi ght to maintain domain is ongoing. Aboriginal

people want to determine their own destiny through social,

economic political and spiritual choice. The connection to

autonomy is through land and that is where a lot of time, energy

and money are focused.

That history of struggle is one narrative of Aboriginal

people. Another narrative is that Aboriginal people in Canada

are resilient and remain strong and focused in the mission to

connect to their traditional lands and to recreate government,

social and economic systems and institutions. Although the

three groupings of Aboriginal people recognized within the

Canadian Constitution represent only a very limited profi le

of all of the Nations that exist within the country, it is the

people within those Nations who continue to speak out and to

insist on inclusion. Working within the judicial, political, and

social structure available to all Canadians, the Aboriginal voice

demands the land be recognized as belonging to the descendents

of the people who were there fi rst. The reasons for that

assertion are based on values integral to Aboriginal nations. In

a Cree nation, for example, respect for the land and everything

on it, responsibility to that relationship and therefore to each

other, honor, and humility will guide the decisions made on or

about all aspects of the land. In the purest traditional cultural

perspective, land is the life source and provides sustenance as

well as avenues for economic and political participation.

The rest of the narrative -that is the foundation upon which

the decisions are made to resolve any Aboriginal issues on land

-is founded in the values found throughout the Canadian justice

system. Those values include a recognition of a pre-existing

society in Canada prior to colonization, an application of the

rule of law, a presumption of the Crown acting to preserve honor

in its dealings and the trust of a process which is not aboriginal.

This does not mean the Canadian processes work perfectly, or

all of the time, or even that they do not need constant review and

overhaul. It does, however, mean that not only Aboriginal people

but also Canadians in general expect the system to be accessible,

transparent, and reliable, for everyone.

Historic Overview

The formal academic model of history is not the best way to

tell the story of Aboriginal Nations experience in Canada. If

Aboriginal people tell this story it would be in a very di% erent

way and would acknowledge and honor the connection of the

people to the land. The linear model of describing events in a

chronological order and seeing that description as evolutionary

does not represent any notion of accuracy in terms of an

Aboriginal’s lived experience. The authors of that line of

historic text are not Aboriginal so that version is also therefore,

objectifi ed. Although time has passed the issue remains,

decisions over Aboriginal people and land are made for and

about but not with Aboriginal people. This is the crux of the

problem that in turn leads to decisions not based on values that

are consistent with respect and integrity of the decision maker

and of the people who live with the decisions.

History cannot however be ignored for it is the dominant

governing system which makes the rules of participation for

negotiation and recognition of a new order or understanding of

boundaries and participation in governance. And through the

historic lens of the Canadian Constitution one can see how the



relationship between Aboriginal Nations and the Crown has

placed Aboriginal Nations in a position where prior existence

holds those Nations in a distinct relationship with the Crown.

This is why the Crown has a duty to acknowledge the Nations

being there fi rst.

Under the Canadian Constitution, Section 91(24), jurisdic-

tion over “Indians and land reserved for Indians” is with the fed-

eral government. This gives the federal government authority to

deal directly with Indians, or First Nations. Further, Section 35

of the Constitution embeds the historic reality of the existence

of Nations existing prior to colonization. It reads as follows:

1. The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal

peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and a0 rmed.

2. In this Act, "aboriginal peoples of Canada" includes In-

dian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.

3. For greater certainty, in subsection (1), "treaty rights" in-

cludes rights that now exist by way of land claims agree-

ments or may be so acquired.

4. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the

aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1)

are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.

Prior to the current Constitution, even the earliest declara-

tions, such as the Royal Proclamation of 1763, recognized Indian

priority in the land. Seeds of this recognition are found through-

out the development of laws, policies and political decisions.

The earliest form of decision making by the Crown over “In-

dians” was in the form of legislation:

‘A year after Confederation, Parliament passed the

fi rst federal Indian Act. This was a cradle-to-grave

regime that governed – and in some ways, still gov-

erns –the lives of Aboriginal people identifi ed as In-

dians. The Act defi ned Indians, and a0 rmed their

entitlement to live on the reserves set aside for them.

It gave –and continues to give– certain tax exemp-

tions for Indians residing on reserves. It imposed

many restrictions on Indians. At di7 erent times

these included alcohol prohibitions, claims restric-

tions, bans on traditional cultural and religious

ceremonies such as the potlatch and the sun dance,

and limits to the very rudimentary form of local gov-

ernment permitted under the Act. The general idea

was to set Indians aside from non-Aboriginal society

so they could be exposed to European religion and

customs and gradually “civilized”. Despite later re-

forms, and recent e7 orts at major change, the Indian

Act is still in place today.’ (Elliott 6)

‘A key purpose of early legislation defi ning Indi-

ans was to prevent unauthorized persons from en-

croaching on Indian reserves. These reserves are

parcels of land that were set aside for the use and

benefi t of Indians. They were originally set aside

to compensate Indians for the loss of larger areas of

land, as places of refuge from baser European infl u-

ences, and (rather paradoxically), as places where

Indians could be gradually converted to European

religions and customs. This protective purpose was

implemented and added to over the decades by pro-



visions on alcohol restrictions, taxation immunity,

fi nancial management by a government overseer,

gradual enfranchisement (ending of status), limited

local government, and a host of other matters. By the

late 19th century, the Indian Act governed almost all

aspects of the lives of those subject to it.’ (Elliott 15).

The Indian Act touches on every aspect of the lives of Indi-

ans, or who are referred to today as First Nation people. This

includes defi ning who Indians are, election of the leadership, ad-

ministration of reserve lands, sale of lands, land surrender and

land taken for a public purpose, schools, loans, treaty money,

taxation, enfranchisement, trespass, wills, mentally competen-

cy, guardianship and more. The Act is comprehensive, has been

found to be discriminatory, has been subject to reform and still

exists today.

The land and the people are the subjects of the Indian Act.

Another place to fi nd how the relationship between First Nation

and the Crown began is through the several Treaties formu-

lated throughout Canada. This included peace and friendship

Treaties and the land Treaties but they did nit cover the entire

geographical area within Canada. The areas not included in

Treaty maintain a claim to Aboriginal title and much of that land

is currently under Treaty negotiation.

Following American jurisprudence like the early cases of

Worcester v. Georgia , 31 U.S. 515 (1832) and Johnson v. M'Intosh

, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat) 543 (1823) “Indian title, or what is now know

in Canada as Aboriginal title, was asserted by the courts as the

way in which Indians held the land. This concept of the right to

use and occupy the land with the underlying title to the Crown is

still relied on by the judiciary today, as is the concept of land ces-

sion through treaty. First Nation people are constantly assert-

ing another perspective based on the history and understanding

passed down from the elders and the leadership: that of original

understanding of the relationship of the people to the land, the

responsibility they have to the land and their understanding of

a collective holding and dominion over, not only the land, but

their own people.

Aboriginal leadership had the lead role in the creation of

section 35 of the Constitution. Together, the Aboriginal and

treaty rights recognized within that section hold all of the legal

recognition necessary to maintain the rights of the collective.

It is through this kind of protection that modern day claims

are provided a space and process to be heard, to be recognized

and to be honored. It is through this lens that claims to land, to

resources, and to governance are framed.

The struggle for recognition, for respect of the treaties and

for the claim to traditional practices and lands are ongoing.

There have been court cases, inquiries, commissions, studies,

legislative overhauls and many attempts form both the Aborigi-

nal people and others to ensure respect for Aboriginal rights

and land are recognized and respected. Adding the Aboriginal

perspective recorded in the history and having an Aboriginal

voice in the current process are the goal.



Multiculturalism in Canada

How Aboriginal people are treated, and how di" erence in gen-

eral is represented within our country is found in our laws and

our institutions. Aside from Aboriginal nations, many nation’s

people are represented in Canadian citizenship. Multicul-

turalism within Canada is cemented within the idea that all

people are equal, and that the population of Canada consists of

a diverse array of races, ethnicities, and cultures that wish to

preserve their diversity while also participating in all levels of

Canadian society. It was a policy adopted in 1971 by the govern-

ment in order to ensure ‘management of diversity through for-

mal initiatives in the federal, provincial and municipal domains.’

(parl.gc.ca). In 1971, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau issued this

statement in Parliament:

“We believe that cultural pluralism is the very

essence of Canadian identity. Every ethnic group

has the right to preserve and develop its own culture

and values within the Canadian context. To say we

have two o. cial languages is not to say we have two

o. cial cultures, and no particular culture is more

‘o. cial’ than another. A policy of multiculturalism

must be a policy for all Canadians.” (Karim 189)

This statement defi nes Canada’s stance on multiculturalism,

and was issued after the adoption of multicultural policy follow-

ing the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism

in 1969, which sought to sort out issues concerning the large

French population within Canada. Issues with the term ‘bicul-

turalism’ soon arose, as there were a great number of cultures

within Canada, which has the highest immigration rate of any

country in the world. It was agreed that there were three main

categories of Canadian citizens, all of which were to have equal

rights and freedoms:

• Aboriginal people - as the fi rst people here and as defi ned

by the Constitution Act, 1982 as including all status Indi-

ans, non-status Indians, Métis and Inuit.

• The Charter group -the English and French speaking

people that make up the majority of Canada’s popula-

tion and also whose original settlers were made up of and

therefore hold a distinct relationship with the land and

the Crown.

• The third and fi nal group is the non-Charter group that

makes up the rest of the population and includes non-

English or non-French speaking peoples, whom are

either native or foreign.

Following the years after Canada’s fi rst multicultural policy,

massive infl uxes of immigrants began, changing the population

composition of large urban cities dramatically. In order to

adjust to these changes, multiculturalism was referred to in the

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Section 27, which

states: ‘This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent

with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural

heritage of Canadians.’ It is a clause which can be used as an

‘interpretive prism’ within courts when weighing individual

rights against multicultural rights (parl.gc.ca). Emerging racist

individuals and groups at this time were eliminated in Section

15(1) of the Charter, which states: ‘Every individual is equal

before and under the law and has the right to equal protection

and equal benefi t of the law without discrimination and, in



particular, without discrimination based on race, national or

ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical

disability.’

In 1988 the Multiculturalism Act was adopted by Parliament,

making Canada the fi rst country in the world to adopt a multi-

culturalism law. This act ‘sought to assist in the preservation of

culture and language, to reduce discrimination, to enhance cul-

tural awareness and understanding, and to promote culturally

sensitive institutional change at the federal level.’ (parl.gc.ca).

Following the Multiculturalism Act, (Bill C-93) any government

department, agency or Crown corporation is now expected to

implement and enhance strategies which allow for the full par-

ticipation of anyone, regardless of race or culture.

In 1996, the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism an-

nounced a new program to further Canada’s multicultural man-

date, which focused in on three main areas:

• Social Justice – the creation of a fair and equitable soci-

ety for all Canadians

• Civic Participation – enabling anyone to participate in

shaping their Canadian community on a local and na-

tional level

• Identity – maintaining diversity and recognition of the

ancestral roots of Canadians

Other programs have been initiated in other areas as well,

including Canada’s Action Plan Against Racism, which received

a budget of $56 million over fi ve years in order to demonstrate

federal support in the e3 ort of the elimination of racism and

hate related crimes. Further e3 orts include the creation of

public holidays leading up to Canada Day on July 1. Formal

Governor General Romeo LeBlanc announced national Aborigi-

nal Day, designated on June 21, in 1996. This day of recognition

had been suggested years earlier by the National Indian Bro-

therhood in 1982 (now Assembly of First Nations), and was also

recommended by RCAP the year before it was implemented, in

1995 (www.ainc-inac.gc.ca). Following this, the Canadian Mul-

ticulturalism Day was created in 2002 when a Royal Proclama-

tion was released stating the day as ‘an opportunity to celebrate

our diversity and our commitment to democracy, equality, and

mutual respect and to appreciate the contributions of the

various multicultural groups and communities to Canadian

society.’ (http://www.pch.gc.ca)

Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples

Although the historic and foundational legislative documents

acknowledged Aboriginal Nations, and Aboriginal Nations

maintained their convictions of sovereignty, the reality was that

there was oppression for Aboriginal people within every na-

tion on every front. Determination over land or even over their

own family units was eroded to the point that government was

openly requesting legislated assimilation of Aboriginal people

into the mainstream society. Aboriginal leadership struggled to

maintain a foothold on governance and slowly became the speci-

men of study, and inquiry and commission.

Finally, after decades of attempts to deal with a plethora of

Aboriginal issues, from land, to housing, to social and economic,

political and more, a report on Aboriginal people was com-

missioned. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples was

given a broad mandate to examine all of the injustices su3 ered



by Aboriginal people. Consultations began by meeting with the

First Nation, Métis and Inuit national political bodies: the As-

sembly of First Nations, the Native Council of Canada, the Métis

National Council, the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, the National As-

sociation of Friendship Centres and the Native Women’s Asso-

ciation of Canada. The Commission wanted the realities of life

of Aboriginal people to be understood by all Canadians because

all Canadians will have to contribute to possible solutions and

support the implementation of these solutions. The ultimate

goal, therefore, was to create a public education program. The

Commission also wanted to hear the views of all Canadians who

wanted to participate in the process and for them all to have an

opportunity, so accessibility was front and centre. Details from

phone lines through languages were looked after by the Com-

mission and an Intervenor Participation program was estab-

lished. It was explicitly noted by the federal government that

the Royal Commission was not established as a substitute for

constitutional reform which the government feels is another

avenue to address Aboriginal concerns. (Fredere)

Created on May 31, 1991, the Royal Commission on Aborigi-

nal Peoples was a massive project and over its fi ve-year life span

several papers were released discussing various issues a- ecting

the Aboriginal peoples. These issues included topics such as

suicide, self-government, extinguishment of Aboriginal title,

and Quebec secession among others. In November 1996, the

fi nal 3537 page Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal

Peoples (RCAP) was released.

This fi nal report consisted of fi ve volumes, two of which dealt

with background history of Aboriginal peoples in Canada, one

discussing social issues facing Aboriginal peoples today, and two

remaining volumes proposing solutions to many of these issues.

These solutions would be implemented over a 20-year period,

with increased federal spending on Aboriginal peoples of 1.5 bil-

lion dollars annually for the fi rst 5 years, increasing to 2 billion

dollars annually for the remaining 15 (parl.gc.ca). Four main

areas required early action: healing, economic development,

human resources development, and the building of Aboriginal

institutions. RCAP recommended hundreds of changes of all

kinds, some of which were considerable.

One such recommendation called for the creation of an

Aboriginal Parliament, fi rst to advise and then, as a third

Parliamentary chamber, to supplement the existing House

of Commons and Senate’ (Elliott 201). It was found that a

Royal Proclamation would be required to cement Canada’s

commitment to new Aboriginal relationships and recognition of

Aboriginal nations and government forms. Other major fi ndings

included establishing a dual Aboriginal/Canadian citizenship,

and an Aboriginal constitutional veto for any matter a- ecting

Aboriginal constitutional rights (Elliott 201). The annual

government spending would go towards improving various

areas of Aboriginal life. Improving housing and water systems,

dealing with high suicide rates, small business assistance, and

increased assistance in Aboriginal education and training. As

Aboriginal populations are growing at twice the rate of Canada’s

population, with over 50% of the Aboriginal population being

under the age of 25, areas of education and job creation are of

increasing concern (parl.gc.ca).



RCAP was not released without controversy. The reliance on

Section 35, the recommendation for Constitutional reform and

the requirement to examine and implement self-government

were and are debated in Canada today. This also led to the very

slow adaptation and/or implementation of the fi ndings of the

Report. However, the amount of information collected, the

consistency of the information collected and the inclusion of

all participants has given this Report enough force to keep it

moving and a( ecting change. Today, more people, governments,

and courts rely on the information and the fi ndings from

the report. Aboriginal people had clearly, through the Royal

Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, found a mechanism to

state the issues they faced, prioritize values and suggest ways

and means to begin addressing those identifi ed concerns, like

unfulfi lled Treaty obligations.

Aboriginal people were not the only people pushing for

the recognition and the addressing of long standing issues

faced by them. It is important to note that the First Minister’s

conferences merging out of the Canadian constitutional debut

of the eighties focused on Aboriginal self-government issues. In

some respect, these conferences, which gathered the provincial

leadership, infl uenced the ethos of both government and

Aboriginals as they approached the fi rst round of hearings at the

Royal Commission.

In the 1991-94 period there were four rounds of public hear-

ings. The strategy for round one was to describe Aboriginal

perceptions of ethnic relationships in Canadian society. Round

two focused on how to deal with existing relationships. The

third was used to hear from the various organizations which

had been funded through the intervenors program. In this third

round of the hearings, the central thrust was to include more

issue-specifi c round tables and group discussions rather than

just individuals or group presentations. The fourth round was

to attend to matters that had not been dealt with in the previous

rounds as well as to develop a better understanding of the issues

identifi ed as problematic. It would precede the fi nal writing of

the Commissions’ report. (Fredere)

Round one was an ‘opening’ of the Commission’s hearings,

and considerable testimony was heard from many Canadians,

particularly from Aboriginals about the social problems facing

them and their plans for the future. The hearings were held in

communities preselected by the commissioners. The intent was

to make sure that all communities in the country would have an

opportunity to present their views to the Commission. The Royal

Commission then established a number of round tables on se-

lected themes, e.g., health, self-government, education, economic

development. These meetings brought together academics, Na-

tive leaders, politicians and other interested stakeholders.

The Intervenor Participation Program was created (1992)

in order to ensure that individuals and groups who wanted to

appear and make submissions to the Commission would be af-

forded the opportunity. As such, a fund of eight million dollars

was set aside in order to enable people to participate in the hear-

ings. The presentations made at each of the four public hearings

were transcribed and placed onto CD Rom. Round one consisted

of 850 individual and group submissions from 36 di( erent com-

munities across Canada. In late 1992, Round two began which



added another 600 presenters and 36 additional communities.

By the fourth round, over 2,200 groups and individuals had made

submissions from more than 112 communities all across Canada.

This Report is crucial for a number of reasons; it added the

perspective of the Aboriginal people to the discourse. It recog-

nized that even though the problems faced by Aboriginal people

are historic, the problems must be worked out within a contem-

porary, inclusive, Canadian context. Finally, the Report o* ered a

way forward that included and respected the Aboriginal People,

the land, the culture and the current realities of the country. Al-

though it was shelved for political reasons almost immediately,

it is slowly fi nding its way into the Supreme Court of Canada

decisions and thinking, into the policy making of provincial,

territorial and Aboriginal governments and it is a foundational

document from which an understanding can begin to transform

the relationship between Aboriginal people and government.

The Supreme Court of Canada in it 2003 decision

in Mitchell v. Minister of National Revenue relied

heavily on the Royal Commission on Aboriginal

People when examining the question of sovereignty:

“What is signifi cant is that the Royal Commission it-

self sees aboriginal peoples as full participants with

non-aboriginal peoples in a shared Canadian sover-

eignty. Aboriginal peoples do not stand in opposition

to, nor are they subjugated by, Canadian sovereignty.

They are part of it.”

Binnie, J.

Aboriginal Land Claims and Self-Government

Negotiations

Broken Treaties and attempts to unilaterally extinguish

Aboriginal rights/title moved quickly to the justice system

to be resolved, once Aboriginal people were no longer denied

access to the courts. After a number of claims were reviewed,

di* erent processed were created to pursue those rights. These

approaches today include resolution by courts, adjudication

before a quasi-judicial tribunal, arbitration, and representa-

tions before a legislative body. Of all methods, negotiation is the

most common and preferred, although there are some negative

impacts on the Aboriginal community concerning the negotia-

tion process. Those impacts include: the large amount of time

required to complete any claim, the expense of experts and even

some quid pro qou with the federal government in order for

them to even go to the table. The advantages seem to outweigh

the disadvantages of negotiation, however, and allowed for

discussion and settlement of a diverse range of issues with the

concerned Aboriginal parties playing a key role within the stages

of discussions, ratifi cation of the agreement by elected parties,

and permanent constitutional status of an agreement.

In Canada there are two types of land claims: comprehen-

sive or specifi c. A comprehensive claim deals with issues of

Aboriginal title to lands and resources. Specifi c claims address

concerns arising from unfulfi lled obligations of the government

through Treaty, for example, for land and fulfi llment of treaty

promises. As mentioned earlier, jurisdiction over Indians and

lands reserved for Indians is with the federal government so

the claim is made to the federal government; however, there



are circumstances in which the provincial government can or

should be included.

In comprehensive claims, it is left to the Aboriginal Nation(s)

to provide evidence of past and present land use that is not dealt

with by treaty or other lawful methods. Specifi c claims require

proof that a governing body has breached an agreement or obli-

gation required by treaty or law. Once the government accepts a

claim, a framework is created for the negotiations.

The typical handling of a claim within a court process is an

incredibly slow, technical process. This method produces both

a winning and losing side, with little compromises between the

parties involved. It is expensive in nature, and the judge presid-

ing over the case need not answer to any of the parties involved

nor to the public.

Similar to a court process, a tribunal may be set up with spe-

cifi c expertise in the realm of Aboriginal claims. Although they

are intended to bypass the technical formality of the courtroom

method, often they will become just as limited. The expense of

this method is great as well, but as a tribunal is beyond govern-

ment control the government will have no say in how the money

is spent. Understandably, most governments are reluctant to

allow this.

Another method of claim resolution adopts the use of an

impartial third-party in order to resolve an Aboriginal claim.

‘An individual arbitrator may permit greater fl exibility than a

court or court-like tribunal, while retaining some of their im-

partiality.’ (Elliott 163). The arbitrator will control all decisions

concerning expenditure, which a government may not desire.

Either the arbitrator can propose solutions directly, or recom-

mend the action to be taken by the federal government.

Both Aboriginal and government bodies submit their respec-

tive proposals to a Parliamentary committee, who then review

and consider each solution. Such an approach presupposes

concrete settlement proposals and a high level of consensus on

key issues. Once the legislative body has decided on a specifi c

solution, the government may or may not accept and act on the

solution.

The most often used method of resolution of Aboriginal

claims today is negotiation. It is both a venue sought by the par-

ties and one strongly encouraged by the courts (Delagamuukw v

British Columbia, Supreme Court of Canada). Representatives

of both the government and the Aboriginal claimant(s) are se-

lected to enter into discussion in order to achieve an acceptable

agreement to both parties. Governments contract with people

to be the lead negotiators to work within the numerous govern-

ment departments and with the claimant group. The Claim-

ant, First Nation or Inuit government will have the leadership

select representatives to work with their various departments of

government and with the interests of the community to reach a

Memorandum of Agreement on the issues identifi ed at the out-

set. Both parties may then have input, and the resulting solution

is consensual, rather than imposed on one or both groups from

above. Although negotiations can be lengthy, the consensual so-

lutions that they o- er make negotiations the preferred method

of handling most Aboriginal claims.



Whether it is the courts, the quasi-judicial body, the parlia-

mentary review or a negotiated process, the common thread is

reliability of the process at a very basic level. In other words,

there must be some level of trust within the parties before the

type of process can be selected and before a decision is rendered.

The federal government’s policy on self-government processes

was a public document, the government provided some funds

to the Aboriginal claimants, for land and for self-government

claims to ensure there was an ability to provide researched,

professional accurate information. There was intention to truly

resolve the issues at hand- the motivation may vary from the

perspective of each level of government (Aboriginal and not)

but the urge to move outstanding, generations old-issues, is real

for everyone involved.

Modern Day Treaties: Nisga’a Trial and Agreement

An Aboriginal Title claim going back to 1881, when a delegation

was sent to Victoria to protest the increased settler presence,

concerned the Nisga’a., a First Nation dwelling within the

Nass River Valley in northern British Columbia. Following the

establishment of a British colony on Vancouver Island in 1849,

and the delegation of Hudson Bay’s Company Chief Factor

James Douglas as Governor in 1851, Douglas began making land

purchases from the local Aboriginal people. These Douglas

Treaties, 14 in total, covered 358 miles2 on the island. In 1858

the mainland of the now British Columbia (BC) became a British

colony, and it was assumed by the government that James

Douglas would continue to cession lands from the Aboriginal

groups present there. However, Douglas merely set up reserve

lands and Indian villages, giving Aboriginals settler’s rights but

not actually signing any formal agreement with the mainland

groups. The Douglas Treaties, as well as Treaty 8 signed in 1899

that covered the northeastern portion of BC, remained the only

formal government agreements of any kind with the Aboriginal

people in BC and left a majority of the province uncessioned

(parl.gc.ca).

The Nisga’a people requested a government land agreement

several times in the 1880s, but following the hearings in Nisga’a

territory in 1887-88 and the group’s request for land and treaty

agreements, the government’s follow-up report dismissed their

demands. In 1907 the Nisga’a people set up a formal political

organization known as the Nisga’a Land Committee (NLC) in

order to secure a land claims agreement. In 1909 the Nisga’a

joined with other north and south coast Aboriginals, forming

the Indian Rights Association. Finally by 1913, they petitioned

the government to agree to reserve traditional land for the

Nisga’a people to live on, while also compensating them for any

lands they agreed to give up. However, much of the land they

requested had been sold by this time.

The government then created the McKenna-McBride

Commission in order to settle the issue of native land claims,

and the Nisga’a people presented their case before the

Commission. In 1924, the government partitioned a mere 76

km2 for Nisga’a reserve land, out of 25,000 km2 of traditionally

used land. An amendment to the Indian Act in 1927 made it

illegal for Aboriginal peoples to raise money to advance land

claims (ainc-inac.gc.ca). This amendment remained in place

until 1951, preventing the Nisga’a Land Committee and other



Aboriginal groups from forming any defence of their Aboriginal

Title to land in BC, which the provincial government had long

considered exhausted despite treaty absence.

When the Indian Act amendment was fi nally removed in

1951, Frank Calder of the Nisga’a First Nation and elected to the

BC Legislature re-established the Nisga’a Land Committee in

1955. Calder was made president of the NLC and worked to re-

solve the land claim issue, before deciding to pursue an indepen-

dent claim from other BC Aboriginal groups in 1959. The NLC

hired Thomas Berger as their lawyer in 1968 in order to defend

their Aboriginal Title in court. This case was known as the

Calder case, and Frank Calder repeated the words that had been

issued by the Nisga’a during the original 1888 hearings: “What

we don’t like about the government is their saying this: ‘ We will

give you this much land.’ How can they give it when it is our

own? We cannot understand it. They have never bought it from

us or our forefathers. They have never fought or conquered our

people and taken the land in that way, and yet they say now that

they will give us so much land—our own land…it has been ours

for a thousand years.” (Dickason, 332). They argued their case to

the British Columbia Supreme Court but the court maintained

the province’s position that ‘whatever rights Indians might have

possessed at time of contact had been overruled by the mere

enactment of white man’s law…’ (Dickason, 332). The Aboriginal

peoples of BC were considered to have no Aboriginal Title as the

Royal Proclamation of 1763 did not apply in British Columbia.

The Nisga’a Land Committee took their case to the Canada

Supreme Court, where a fi nal ruling was decided in 1973. The

court was split four to three on the issue of whether the Nisga’a

people still had right to their lands, but the majority agreed that

they had title to the land prior to the creation of British Colum-

bia. This created the precedent that historic occupation of lands,

if proven, gave Aboriginal people right to their land, and the ex-

tinguishment of this right was dependent on the federal govern-

ment. It was after this ruling that Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau

decided that Aboriginal people had more legal rights than

originally declared in the White Paper of 1969 which has been

an attempt to force assimilation. He then entrenched Aboriginal

rights, without defi nition, in Section 35 of the Constitution Act

1982, despite protest by provincial premiers (Dickason 333).

Bilateral negotiations between the Nisga’a and the federal

government began taking place in 1976, before a framework

agreement was signed on 1989. BC continued to deny Aboriginal

Title, but joined in to form tripartite negotiations the following

year in 1990. By the end of 1991, a new framework agreement

was worked out and signed by all three parties. An Agreements-

in-Principle was formed in 1996. It wasn’t until August 4, 1998,

that the Nisga’a Final Agreement was initialed and ratifi ed.

The real test of the success of the Nisga’a claim will be con-

stantly reviewed. Some have argued it was a divisive process,

others claim that the paramouncy of Nisga’a laws will prove to

be problematic. Some non-Aboriginal people wanted access

to the democratic process of ratifi cation of the Treaty, which

they did not get and still others claim that the collective rights

claimed are at the cost of individual interests and fi nally that

this was a process that was far too expensive. Other Aboriginal

groups had overlapping claims and the issues around that will

have to unfold as the Treaty moves through implementation.



The Nisga’a Claim included a land claim and a self-govern-

ment negotiations process. These negotiated land and gover-

nance agreements are two very di$ erent agreements and both

fi t within the parameters of the Canadian Constitution. They

fi t both in terms of application of laws, and understanding of

paramouncy. Again, the processes were available because of a

federal recognition of First Peoples, through a Constitutional

recognition of Aboriginal and Treaty rights, because of a doc-

trine of honor of the Crown in dealing with Aboriginal people

and because of access to the process, in a meaningful way, by

Aboriginal people.

Specifi c Claims to Land already identifi ed as First

Nation Lands: The Indian Claims Commission

Within Canada, the demand for a process to resolve outstanding

land issues was coming from all directions. Claimants needed

an impartial and transparent and trustworthy process. The

government was spending enormous amounts of dollars and

time on litigation and they also needed a process they could fun-

nel the ever-growing list of claims through. The establishment

of the Indian Claims Commission (ICC) was a solution to these

requests and concerns.

A claim starts within a First Nation. The First Nation re-

searches the claim and submits it with supporting documents

to the Indian and Northern A$ airs Canada. The Specifi c Claims

Branch of that department does its own research and, with the

Department of Justice, assesses the claim to determine if the

claim establishes an "outstanding lawful obligation" on the part

of the government.

If the federal government does not believe it has an outstand-

ing obligation, the claim is rejected and the Department of

Indian A$ airs informs the First Nation that it will not negotiate

a settlement.

The selection of who will participate in the ICC process may

have been a political decision but was also based on who would

be respected by everyone involved and who had knowledge and

experience on land claim issues. The people on the Commission

were appointed by government through a mutually agreeable se-

lection process. The Commission’s stated outline of the process

was as follows:

Fairness in Claims Negotiation

The Indian Claims Commission is a Commission of Inquiry and

was established in 1991 with a double mandate: to inquire at the

request of the First Nation into its specifi c land claim; and to

provide mediation services, with the consent of both parties, for

specifi c claims at any stage of the process.

As part of its mandate to fi nd more e$ ective ways to resolve

specifi c claims, the Commission established a process to inquire

into and review government decisions regarding the merits of a

claim and the applicable compensation principles when negotia-

tions have reached an impasse. Since the Commission is not a

court, it is not bound by strict rules of evidence, limitation periods

and other technical defenses that might present obstacles in liti-

gation of grievances against the Crown. This fl exibility removes

those barriers and gives the Commission the freedom to conduct

fair and objective inquiries in as expeditious a way as possible.

In turn, these inquiries o$ er the parties innovative solutions in



their e! orts to resolve a host of complex and contentious issues

of policy and law. Moreover, the process emphasizes principles of

fairness, equity and justice to promote reconciliation and healing

between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians.

ICC Inquiry Process

Stage 1: Initial Request for Inquiry

Upon receiving a request for inquiry and accompanying docu-

ments, the Commission will consider the request, and, upon

acceptance, form a panel of Commissioners to hear the inquiry,

and notify the government of Canada and the First Nation of

the inquiry. Both parties will be asked to provide copies of the

documents relevant to the claim. All relevant documents are

organized in chronological order, compiled digitally in CD-ROM

format, and distributed to the parties. Commission research

sta! assist in identifying any gaps in the historical documents

which may require supplementary research.

Stage 2: Preparation for Inquiry

The inquiry process is planned jointly. Briefi ng materials pre-

pared by the Commission are sent to the parties in advance to

facilitate discussion. Counsel for the parties are asked to state

issues to be addressed by the inquiry, from which Commission

sta! attempted, in consultation with counsel for the parties, to

generate a single list of issues. A planning conference, at which

the parties meet, is arranged and chaired by a Commission

Counsel. Some objectives of the conference were to identify the

relevant historical and legal issues; openly discuss the positions

of the parties on the issues; and to attempt to obtain a single

set of issues to be addressed in the inquiry, failing which issues

would be referred to the panel for resolution. This was done

in writing, or the panel asked for oral submissions, that were

made at the outset of a further planning conference. Except for

this, the panel would not attend a planning conference. Other

objectives of the planning conference were to discuss histori-

cal documents the parties intend to rely on, determine whether

parties intend to call elders, community members or experts as

witnesses; and set time frames for outstanding commitments

and the remaining stages of the inquiry. In cases where further

research was required, the Commission encouraged jointly-

mandated research.

Stage 3: Sta% Visit and Community Session(s)

This is a unique and important aspect of the Commission's

inquiry process. At this stage, Commissioners and sta! attend

a session in the First Nation's community to hear directly from

elders and other members of the First Nation. The community

session encourage a much greater level of participation on the

part of the First Nation and is carried out in a manner that is

respectful of the First Nation's language, culture and tradi-

tions. The testimony and oral tradition of the elders is recorded

and transcribed. These transcripts are an important source of

information used to supplement the historical documents and

promote a broader understanding of the claim from the First

Nation's perspective. Questions were posed by the Commis-

sioners or their legal counsel only and no cross-examination

of elders was permitted. However, counsel for the Commission

consulted with both parties before and during the session to

identify relevant questions and lines of inquiry. In some cases,

expert witnesses could present evidence in a separate session,

provided they had furnished a written report in advance and



the Commissioners had requested their attendance in person.

Experts could be subject to cross-examination.

Stage 4: Written and Oral Submissions

With the benefi t of a wealth of information from elders, com-

munity members and historical documents, legal counsel for

the parties were asked to provide written and oral submissions

to the Commissioners on the facts and law to assist them in

determining whether the Crown owes an outstanding "law-

ful obligation" to the First Nation. Again, the oral submissions

were recorded and transcribed to assist in the Commissioners'

decision-making process.

Stage 5: Commissioners’ Final Report

Upon careful review of all the evidence – from documentary

sources, oral tradition and oral history – and upon consideration

of all legal arguments, the Commission panel deliberates and re-

ports on its fi ndings and conclusions. Ultimately, these fi ndings

and conclusions will inform the Commission's recommendation

regarding the Crown's outstanding lawful obligation. The Com-

missioners' fi nal report is released to the parties involved in the

claim and to the public. The Commissioners' recommendations

are not binding on either the First Nation or Canada, but the re-

port is intended to assist in resolving the dispute. After releasing

the fi nal report, the Commission's inquiry comes to an end.

ICC Mediation Process

1. Preparation for Mediation: The Commission reviews the

claim being negotiated and brings representatives of the nego-

tiating parties together face-to-face to discuss the issues and

terms of the negotiation and mediation protocol agreements.

2. Negotiation Process: The Commission facilitates

discussions on compensation, assists the parties by coordinating

the gathering of information including land appraisals and

joint loss of use studies, and monitors the parties’ decisions and

undertakings.

3. Settlement: When and after the negotiating parties reach an

agreement in principle, lawyers for the First Nation and Canada

work together to draft a fi nal settlement agreement which is

initialed by the negotiators and ratifi ed by both parties.

4. Final Report: The Commission reports to the federal gov-

ernment, the First Nation and the public on the outcome of the

negotiation

The Indian Claims Commission provides broad mediation

services at any stage of the claims process, and at the request of

both the First Nation and the Government of Canada. Together

with the mediator, the parties decide how the mediation process

would be conducted. This method ensures that the process fi ts

the unique circumstances of each particular negotiation.

For many years, First Nation and government negotiators

attempted to put an end to deadlocked land claims, but there has

been little progress. Negotiations have been slow and di) cult,

and relatively few settlements have been reached. This backlog

of unresolved claims is not acceptable.



Before the creation of the Indian Claims Commission, First

Nations were unable to challenge government decisions without

going to court. As an alternative to court action, the ICC o# ered

a fresh and positive approach for First Nations that desire an

independent review of government decisions.

The limited mandate of the ICC and a shortage of funding

have been identifi ed by many claimants and Commissioners as

inhibiting the e% cient and timely resolution of claims. Fur-

ther, RCAP also pushed for a stronger and further- reaching

body, recommending legislation for an independent tribunal, to

review federal funding to claimants and to monitor negotiations

and issue binding orders. Thus there was a movement to cre-

ate a permanent independent claims body. This new body was

to have more authority and to advance the backlog of existing

claims and to deal with future claims.

The result of the request was to create The Specifi c Claims

Resolution Act and it is set to establish a body which is to be

known as the Centre for Independent Resolution of First Na-

tions Specifi c Claims to replace the ICC. This body is legislated

and intended to have full-time sta# and more authority. It has

a set dollar limit for compensation, in the millions, and creates

The Canadian Centre for the Independent Resolution of First

Nations Specifi c Claims with tribunal capacity. As it is just be-

ing created, a critique of this new body is premature

Kawacatoose First Nation – Treaty Four

The fourth in a series of numbered treaties by the Brit-

ish Crown. Signed in Southern Saskatchewan in 1874.

One Canadian First Nation who believed they had a

valid claim for land that was rejected by the federal gov-

ernment’s review process is Kawacatoose First Nation

in the province of Saskatchewan. The First Nation had

historical evidence of the shortage. They argued that

at the time of Treaty when the land allotment was be-

ing calculated, several members of two families were

not accounted for, nor were those members taken into

consideration in calculating the size of the land to be

distributed.

Canada rejected the land claim and Kawacatoose went

to the Indian Claims Commission to have their case

processed through this independent Commission. As

a result of the in-depth review of the Indian Claims

Commission the Kawacatoose claim was found to be

valid and it was recommended that the Claim proceed

through the established provincial Treaty Land Entitle-

ment process.

The Indian Claims Commission found that the First Na-

tion was owed an additional 8526 acres. After the Treaty

Land Entitle Process was concluded, Kawacatoose First

Nation received 23 million dollars in federal compensa-

tion. The funds are to be used to purchase the shortfall

in acres owed.



Conclusion

At the centre of this paper is the notion that within Canada

our best attempts to resolve the long standing issues over land

between the Aboriginal Nations and the federal governments

come when the best values of both are represented in the

intention, the process and the institutions of governance. That

no matter what time frame you use to examine the relationship,

the reality is always one of each nation respecting the other,

and proceeding in a direction that is in the best interests of

honoring the reality of and history of both. The list of what is

not done well is long and told in the statistics of poor health,

poverty, unemployment, lack of education of Aboriginal people.

What is done well is in the fact that there is a story unfolding

of Aboriginal people participating in the broader context of

determining a path for their own people and looking after

resources on the land.

This is a brief overview of work being done for, and by

Aboriginal people on land claims and allows for a brief refl ection

of the bigger picture of Aboriginal Nation’s history in Canada.

In reality the story is much richer and more complex. The story

also has many smaller stories wrapped up inside of it which

when told together, give a more complete version of events.

There are success stories of Nations reclaiming governance

over lands, reinstituting traditional values, legislating, and

developing resources. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal

People and the Indian Claims process as well as modern day

Treaty making were used to exemplify just how far Aboriginal

people have come in terms of infl uencing the process and of

insisting on participation.

The personal stories, which were not told here, are perhaps

even more important and have infl uenced those larger items in

ways that cannot be measured. These include the stories of El-

ders infl uencing leadership in a good way, of youth having access

to education and to their language, of the value of women and

values of women, of valuable employment of men and women

in community, of the creation of Aboriginal corporations and

Aboriginal political development. These include the personal

stories of a small Aboriginal Nation writing it’s own constitu-

tion, or creating a system of laws based on traditions and cus-

toms, or another who gives birth to an Aboriginal politician who

uses his culture to infl uence the non-Aboriginal government’s

constitutional reform, in turn a& ecting every Canadian person,

for the better. Those personal stories are the seeds that have

been sewn that allow for individuals within the Nations to fi nd

a place - their place - to be a valuable part of the Nation and to

have a voice in determining where the Nation’s priorities are.

Those smaller stories are from the people who are the check and

balance within the Aboriginal Nations of Canada, who demand

that peace, order and good governance are part of every commu-

nity, and that when it comes to an Aboriginal Nation, that their

culture be represented in the daily decision making that impacts

the people and the land. Those stories say that Aboriginal Na-

tions are not just a problem to be dealt with, but instead, that

they have something valuable to add to the country as a whole.



If the Elders of our communities could meet and talk to-

gether it is the values that they would talk about through the

stories they would share that would be the foundation of moving

forward. There would also be talk of how to see that no matter

what the current reality is, certain things must be honored fi rst,

like: Recognition of the history of the Moro and of Moro domain

over the land. Recognition that there has been a dismantling of

indigenous culture through law and through war that is a forum

for genocide. Recognition in the value of the land to not only

sustain a Nation and its spirit but to have it thrive. And recogni-

tion that the values of the Nations who were there fi rst, is what

sustains that nation and what that nation will rebuild itself with.


178

Conclusions and Recommendations

The positioning analysis of Commonwealth Act (CA)

141 or the Public Land Act, Republic Act (RA) 9054,

the MOA-AD, and of the fi ve land confl ict stories of

Moros in Central Mindanao brings us to the follow-

ing conclusions and recommendations:

1. There is a need to re-examine the e$ ects of colonizer-

imposed social identities of Filipinos as projected in

Commonwealth Act 141

Because CA 141 was adopted from a law of the former Ameri-

can colonial government, we can surmise that the use of ‘non-

Christians’ to refer to people who resisted foreign colonization

was not a matter of not fi nding any other more appropriate

words, but was part of a carefully planned colonial strategy,

designed to justify the invasion by defaming the inhabitants and

describing them as inferior, uncivilized, dangerous, primitive,

aggressive and lazy, and therefore needing assistance (Türk-

men, 2003; Okazaki et al, 2008). The use of the term would also

pit non-Christian Filipinos against Christian Filipinos, similar

to what happened to the whites and non-whites, and therefore,

would obscure the identities of the real contending parties of

the confl ict. Therefore, an e5 ect of this colonizers’ strategy was

to create an identity issue among the colonized, such that the

inhabitants began to look at their selves as well as their ingroups

and outgroups based on identities constructed by the colonizers

(Türkmen, 2003; Okazaki et al, 2008).

Unfortunately, when the American colonizers left, the state

o6 cials took over the colonizers’ identity, and the “ruler and

superior” mentality, and retained the term non-Christians in

the Public Land Act. The challenge now is to examine how this

identity problem continues to manifest in the present times.

Manifestations include the framing of the land confl icts in Min-

danao as a confl ict between the Muslims and Christian settlers

and the asymmetrical relation between Christians and non-

Christians in land confl icts in Mindanao, with more Christians

and corporations owning vast tracts of land.



Another manifestation of the e! ects of the positioning of the

state in CA 141 can be drawn from the analysis of the emerging

issues in the implementation of the Indigenous People’s Rights

Act (IPRA) of 1997 or Republic Act 8371. With the passage of this

law, the sections of Commonwealth Act 141 pertaining to non-

Christians have been e! ectively repealed. However, an assess-

ment of IPRA as well as of RA 9054 or the ARMM law pointed to

the inability of these laws to solve the unrest within the Muslim

Filipinos and indigenous people that was in part caused by the

inequity of CA 141. As Ong (2002, pp. 590-591) argued:

“In fact, to prevent stepping on the others’ toes,

the authors of the new laws had treaded carefully,

making sure that each sector’s political sensibilities

will not be a! ected. The Indigenous People’s Rights

Act (IPRA) makes no mention of Muslim Filipinos,

whereas the Autonomous Region of Muslim

Mindanao (ARMM) law provides no procedure for

survey, delineation and titling of ancestral lands

and domains of indigenous peoples within the

ARMM. Such cautious approach led to the creation

of several gray areas, one of which is the issue on the

jurisdiction over ancestral lands and domains.”

Moreover, among non-governmental organizations

working with indigenous people’s organizations and alliances,

there is an emerging consensus on the need to assess the

Indigenous People’s Rights Act (IPRA) because of the growing

dissatisfaction over its implementation and uncertainty over its

value (Gatmaytan, 2007). Gatmaytan (2007, p.20) analyzed, “…

instead of enabling indigenous groups or communities to build

on local values and practices, on their own path to development

and sustainable management, they are constrained by

bureaucratic requirements imposed by DENR and other

agencies. Such demands refl ect a deep-seated government

distrust of indigenous capabilities.” If we are to link this analysis

to our discussion of the e! ects of our colonial past, then we can

surmise that the current inequitable relations between the State

and our indigenous people, who are positioned as the ruler/

superior and the ruled/inferior respectively, can be another

manifestation of the post-colonial identity struggle. Underneath

this is the state’s positioning of itself as the ruler and superior,

and the positioning of the indigenous peoples, including the

Moro, as the ruled and inferior who need the state’s assistance.

This positioning analysis underscores the need for: a) fur-

ther examination of the e! ects of our colonial past on our social

identities and relations, b) a reconstruction of our social iden-

tities, and c) a corresponding reframing of our state-citizenry

relations and interactions. Included in this examination is a

complete review of legislation, programs and policies, not only

of Commonwealth Act 141, but also of subsequent laws that

attempted to reposition and provide restorative justice to the

Moro: the 1976 Tripoli Agreement, Republic Act 6734, RA 9054,

the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, the Indigenous

Peoples Rights Act, and even the MOA-AD, especially on their

provisions on land tenure.

For as long as the state maintains its colonizer-infl uenced

positioning (“ruler-ruled” and “superior-inferior”) mentality

and its corresponding centralist governance paradigm, then any

other alternative law to CA 141, IPRA and ARMM law is doomed



to fail in breaking our country away from the infl uence of its

colonial past.

2. There is a need to recognize that the contrasting

storylines and mutual rejection of positioning of

parties of land disputes cannot be resolved through

rejection of one storyline and upholding of the other.

One of the consistent and common threads of stories presented

in this study is that of Moro communities being forced to vacate

their ancestral lands in the early 1970s because of the war

of the government against Moro insurgents, and of waves of

Christian settlers occupying the Moro ancestral lands through

government-sponsored resettlement programs in the absence

of the previous Moro occupants. Christian settlers in two of the

fi ve cases (Story 1 and Story 2), insist that they legally bought the

lands and developed them. Nonetheless, Christian settlers in the

Isulan Impao land confl ict story sympathized with the Moros,

and acknowledged that Moros were forced to sell their lands

because of poverty and hardships brought about by the war. The

Christian settlers, who were encouraged by the government to

leave their homes in Luzon and the Visayas and go to Mindanao

to occupy lands, availed of favorable provisions of the Public

Land Act. These and the subsequent return of Moro communi-

ties from years of evacuation and their e- orts to reclaim their

lands provide the general backdrop of the land confl icts.

Section 5 of this study, which delved on the positioning analy-

sis of the land confl ict stories, highlights these two contrasting

storylines – the Moros’ reclaiming of their ancestral lands, on

one hand, and Christian settlers’ defense of their occupied lands,

on the other hand. In these storylines, the parties position the

other party in a negative light. The mutual rejection of these

positions manifests as disputes. However, positioning analysis

also shows that the underlying meaning or intentions, as well as

desired processes for confl ict resolution, are not confl icting and

can be reconciled.

In the fi rst storyline, which talks about the perspectives of

both groups on the causes of the land confl ict, the Moros posi-

tioned themselves as rightful landowners, and victims of Chris-

tian settlers’ deceptive acts and of government’s injustice. They

positioned the Christian settlers as deceivers and squatters in

their ancestral lands. On the other hand, the Christian settlers

positioned the Muslims as intruders and harassers, interested in

obtaining monetary benefi t from Christians. The Christians po-

sition their selves as rightful landowners harassed by Muslims

to leave their legally acquired occupied lands.

If a third party is to choose between these two storylines,

it will be di1 cult to do so based on plausibility because both

storylines sound plausible. The confl ict cannot thus be resolved

through a win-lose process, such as through arbitration, court

decision, or military solution because there will always be

another group that will contest the decision, and insist on the

validity or veracity of the other side. One way out of the confl ict

is through reconciliation of storylines and reconstruction of

identities, in which all the parties will begin to focus and give

more value to their commonalities, interconnectedness, and

superordinate goals. The latter refers to shared goals that require

the cooperative e- ort of all and the need to give less value to dif-

ferences (Myers, 1999). As pointed out by Santos (2002, p. 160),

“The road to peace in Mindanao involves the search for common-



alities between Muslims and Christian Filipinos. These Filipinos

can help build bridges of understanding along that road.”

The challenge has been (this research is not the fi rst to point

out this need) on how to reconcile storylines. One is to highlight

that this is not a confl ict between the Moro and the Christian,

but is an inherited e( ect of our colonial past. In internalizing

and articulating this storyline, the Muslims and the Christians

will be able to position themselves similarly as victims and as

co-problem solvers. Problem solving will necessitate – as a way

of reconciling storylines – the recognition of the tenurial land

rights within the ancestral domain of the Moros and of their

right to self-determination, as well as the recognition of the

needs of Christian settlers who have been in Mindanao for de-

cades as well as their e( orts to develop their occupied lands.

Indeed, there is more emotional intensity when the subject of

who deserves to be considered rightful owner of the land is talked

about; but when resolution is the subject matter of inquiry, there

seems to be more agreement. The second positioning analysis,

which was drawn from the second common theme of statements

of Muslims and Christian settlers, depicts the perspectives of the

two parties on how the confl ict should be resolved.

The foregoing suggests a need to provide more stimuli to

drive the parties of the land confl ict cases to talk increasingly

about confl ict resolution. This can be in the form of providing

community-based opportunities for sharing of confl ict resolu-

tion options between and among parties in the communities,

while providing support for the continuation of peace negotia-

tions at the national (macro) level (more on this below). This

includes agreements that spell out procedural matters fi rst, in

both national and local levels.

3. There is a need to design and implement land

redistribution and reparation policies and programs in

Mindanao

To resolve land confl icts in Mindanao, initiatives to reconstruct

social identities and to search for common grounds should be

twinned with concrete land redistribution and reparation poli-

cies and support programs. The fi ve land confl ict cases provide

us with cues on what these policies and programs should be:

3.1 Pursuance and consummation of negotiations for the defi ni-

tion and delineation of the ancestral domain of Moros as

a way of recognizing and respecting the Moros’ centuries

old struggle for self-determination, and as a way of redress-

ing the injustices committed against them by government

resettlement programs and discriminating laws and policies.

Land rights of Christian settlers in the ancestral domain of

the Moros should, however, be clarifi ed and respected.

3.2 Formulation of implementing rules and regulations of the

following sections of CA 141, IPRA, and ARMM law which

recognize the land rights of those who were forcibly evicted

by war or force majeure, especially in situations where said

lands have been occupied and developed by other people

during their absence. Relevant parts of these sections are in

all caps.

CA 141, Section 48b:

Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-



interest have been, in continuous, exclusive, and notorious

possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public

domain, under a bona fi de claim of acquisition or ownership,

for at least thirty years immediately preceding the fi ling of

the application for confi rmation of title, EXCEPT WHEN

PREVENTED BY WAR OF FORCE MAJEURE. Those shall

be conclusively presumed to have performed all the condi-

tions essential to a government grant and shall be entitled to

a certifi cate of title under the provisions of this chapter.

IPRA, Chapter II, Section 3b:

Ancestral Lands - Subject to Section 56 hereof, refers to land

occupied, possessed and utilized by individuals, families and

clans who are members of the ICCs/IPs since time immemo-

rial, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest,

under claims of individual or traditional group ownership,

continuously, to the present EXCEPT WHEN INTERRUPT-

ED BY WAR, FORCE MAJEURE OR DISPLACEMENT BY

FORCE, DECEIT, STEALTH, OR AS A CONSEQUENCE OF

GOVERNMENT PROJECTS and other voluntary dealings

entered into by government and private individuals/corpora-

tions, including, but not limited to, residential lots, rice ter-

races or paddies, private forests, swidden farms and tree lots;

ARMM law, Article X, Section 1:

Ancestral Domain; Lands of Indigenous Cultural Communi-

ties – Subject to the Constitution and existing laws, the Re-

gional Government shall undertake measures to protect the

ancestral domain and ancestral lands of indigenous cultural

communities.

All lands and natural resources in the autonomous region

that have been possessed or occupied by indigenous cultural

communities since time immemorial, EXCEPT WHEN PRE-

VENTED BY WAR, FORCE MAJEURE, OR OTHER FORMS

OF FORCILE USURPATION, shall form part of the ancestral

domain.

In developing the implementing rules and regulations of

these sections of CA 141, IPRA and ARMM law, policy makers

should take note of the fact that the government has issued land

titles to some, if not many, occupants of these lands. The imple-

mentation policy should therefore include the clarifi cation of

land rights of those who: (a) decided not to return to their ances-

tral land because of fear or threat to life, (b) did not to return to

their ancestral land by own choice or because better opportuni-

ties are available in their present location, but decided to claim

their ancestral land upon learning of income opportunities, such

as registering and selling the said land under the Voluntary O0 er

to Sell (VOS) scheme of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform

Program or other similar government programs, (c) are now

occupying maximum size of land allowed by law in other areas,

and are economically well-o0 than those who are currently

occupying the land, (d) have developed and currently tilling or

using the land; and (e) seek just reparation from damage and

deprivation resulting from any of the above. Necessary govern-

ment support programs such as the facilitation of process for

equitable sharing of land, disturbance compensation, provision

of alternative, equally productive or useable land, etc. have to be

installed for those who will be adversely a0 ected by the Moro’s

reclaiming of their ancestral land. The designing and imple-

mentation should hence be guided by the “Real Pareto maxim”,



which states that, “Justice is so important that we should never

make the worse o# even worst o# (however trivially) for the sake

of others” (Wol# , 2001, p.8).

To this end, the experience of Canada’s aboriginal people’s

struggle for reclaiming their ancestral lands, including the

establishment of bodies that are focused solely on the aboriginal

land claims (Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Indian

Claims Commission, McKenna-McBride Commission) provides

concrete lessons and examples of policy and programs which

could apply to the Moro and other indigenous peoples struggles

to reclaim their ancestral lands as well.

3.3 Designing and implementation of a program that will de-

lineate and defi ne boundaries of parcels of land, barangays,

municipalities, and provinces, and land tenure rights

Records of the Land Management Bureau show that a big

portion of lands in Mindanao are not yet comprehensively sur-

veyed, and that almost half or 49.82% of parcels of alienable and

disposable lands in Mindanao (See Table 4 of this paper) are not

yet titled. This means that land boundaries are not yet defi ned,

and land rights remain to be contentious in these areas. For

proper management of lands -including a more sustainable res-

olution of land confl icts - in Mindanao, it appears, as evidenced

by the land confl ict between the Bagumbayan and Rajahbuayan

clans in Story 5 featured in Section 5 of this study, that appropri-

ate program needs to be established.

As the process of delineating boundaries and adjudicating

land rights can be confl ict-ridden and will need the support of all

sectors (land claimants, civil society organizations, government,

business organizations), a multi-stakeholder mechanism should

be established. This multi-stakeholder mechanism will serve

as a forum for dialogues and for resolution and transformation

of confl icts that will block and arise from the establishment

of this program. Designers and implementers of this program

can learn from the experiences of the Land Administration and

Management Project (LAMP), an inter-agency government

project lodged at the Department of Environment and Natural

Resources (DENR), in Leyte and Bohol.

Included in this program is the reform of the tedious and

corruption-prone land titling system and the simplifi cation of

the complicated and rigorous requirements of cadastral surveys.

There should also be awareness and capacity-building activities

for local communities on the process of titling. Accompanying

this review should be the enactment of policies that mandates

consultation as a legal concept in the various stages of delinea-

tion, adjudicating land rights, and titling processes, as with the

Canadian example.

Whenever possible, the National Commission on Indigenous

People (NCIP) must facilitate and fast-track the identifi cation,

delineation and ground survey of ancestral domains of indige-

nous peoples. In the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao,

the functions of the NCIP have not yet been fully devolved to

the O5 ce of the Southern Cultural Communities (OSCC). An

administrative relationship between NCIP and the OSCC that

would complete the NCIP’s devolution should be established by

an issuance of an Executive Order from the President of the Re-

public. Such an issuance has not been resorted to date, citing lack



of funds as an excuse. The Moro and indigenous communities of

Mindanao cannot be made to wait indefi nitely for this to happen.

To sum up, it is important to design and implement this

program: (a) in view of the struggle of the Moros for recognition

of their right to self-determination and reclaiming of ancestral

lands, and the clamor of Christian settlers for recognition of

their rights to land that they developed and have long-occupied,

(b) along the framework of equitable land redistribution, and (c)

guided by the principles of service-oriented and participatory

governance (as opposed to the ‘colonizer-colonized’ or ‘ruler-

ruled’ style of governance).

4. Resolution of tenurial confl icts will be more e$ ective

if it is community-based and provides for localized

solutions. It is important to provide support for the

strengthening of local confl ict mechanisms for the

resolution of land and other confl icts, including those

that make use of customary laws.

We have seen how the laws adopted by the colonizers and

subsequent governments of the Republic of the Philippines has

historically disregarded customary laws, local knowledge and

indigenous practices, emasculating local traditional leaders and

disregarding their jurisdiction over land disposition and the

resolution of disputes. The colonial policies not only abolished

the stewardship concept of land ownership; it has also created

a system not attuned to the way of life of the Moro and other

indigenous communities. The current mode of settling land

tenure disputes are part and parcel of this colonial set-up,

which has been ine+ ective in addressing local confl icts because

judicial proceedings and rules of evidence are incompatible with

the observance of e+ ective and relevant customary laws and

indigenous dispute resolution practices.

Mediation and conciliation are approaches that help in

resolving land confl icts. The consensual approach in resolving

disputes had been found not only in the Philippine but in the

world over, including in Canada as depicted in Section 6 of this

research, to be e+ ective in e+ ecting lasting solutions to a host of

problems, including land problems or aspects of them. The pre-

ponderance of land confl icts points to the need to provide sup-

port for the strengthening of local capabilities and mechanisms

for dispute resolution and transformation. As the example of

one of the land confl ict stories has shown, there is much poten-

tial in making use of a blend of customary laws and traditions

interfacing with that of administrative rules and procedures in

resolving land confl icts.

There are many such local confl ict resolution mechanisms

that are already established in Mindanao and have proven ef-

fective in resolving disputes and maintaining peace and order

in their communities. Examples of these are the JUMPOC in

Barira and the Bleye Kitab of South Upi, both in the province of

Maguindanao; the Municipal Peace Commission of Kapatagan

in Lanao del Sur; and the Barangay Agama Arbitration Coun-

cil in Simunul and Sitangkai, Tawi-Tawi. Another avenue for

strengthening locally-based bodies for confl ict resolution is by

amending the barangay justice system, provided for in the Local

Government Code of 1991, to include local mechanisms for land

tenure cases involving not only individuals but also organiza-

tions and corporations as complainants and respondents. Cur-

rently, the jurisdiction of the barangay justice system is limited



to disputes involving individuals. A third avenue is by expanding

the paradigm of the local Peace and Order Councils, by shifting

from that which is focused on security and order alone to in-

clude that of the human security framework, building a culture

of peace and confl ict transformation in their localities.

All of the above mechanisms when combined together and

strengthened could represent a signifi cant factor in the speedy

disposition of disputes. Policies to facilitate the exchange of

dispute resolution practices, experiences, and lessons through,

among others, forums and popularized information, education

and communication materials could further enhance their

e& ectiveness.

Very important, no certifi cate of claim, license, permit or

authority to survey, explore, utilize or develop be issued or

granted without the mandatory community-based consultation

and dialogue as well as the written free prior informed consent

of Moro and other indigenous inhabitants. This is to ensure a

just, humane and commensurate share of the income and profi t

derived from the utilization, exploration, commercialization

and development of mineral and natural resources in Mindanao.

5. Along with a good land tenure program, practices

of good governance must be promoted and actively

enhanced. Transparency and accountability will help

demonstrate sincerity in facilitating restorative justice

to the Moro people.

Much has been said about the marginalization of local

government units in the discussion on political solutions to

the Mindanao confl ict. One reason cited for this is that local

politicians understand the value of land as a source of political

power. The role of enlightened local and national leaders

cannot be overlooked, because politicians have in the recent

past acted as architects of destabilization, which in turn creates

more confl icts on a micro level. When political processes break

down at the national level, many little wars are triggered on

the ground. Local successes in promoting peace are rendered

moot by national level political disagreements that trigger tens

of local confl icts. Potential confl icts become manifest confl icts

because the divide between local governance and national

politics is porous. Promoting good governance principles as a

way of improving the political context at all levels is a necessary

ingredient in resolving confl icts.

6. More studies that enrich the overall discourse on the

Moro struggle for land claims should be undertaken.

This study is but a very modest contribution to the vast area of

Moro land claims and struggle for self determination. The fol-

lowing have not been su' ciently dealt with by this study and are

thus recommended for future studies:

6.1 Assessing the gender-related e& ects of government land

disposition laws on Moro men and women indigenous

peoples. In Commonwealth Act 141, a female non-Christian

can qualify for a permit to occupy land only if she is the head

of the family. In Philippine culture, the head of the family is,

more often than not, a male. This means, therefore, that a

female non-Christian can apply for a permit only if widowed

or in the absence of a male head of the family. Though CA

141 does not state same qualifi cation for the Christians,

a government policy issued before the enactment of CA



141 had already limited women’s opportunity to apply for

a homestead patent. Paragraph 8 of Land Administrative

Order No. 7-1 dated April 30, 1936, entitled “Rules and

Regulations Governing the Filing and Disposition of

Application for Alienable lands of the Public domain or

for Real Properties of Commonwealth of the Philippines”

allowed women to apply for homestead patent only if her

husband is incapacitated by death, disease, or mental illness,

or is imprisoned. This government policy was repealed only

in 2002 by DENR Administrative Order 2002-13 entitled

“Removal of Gender Bias in the Acceptance and Processing

of Homestead Patent Applications and Other Public Land

Application”. With the length of time that these laws were

operative and e0 ective, it is important to assess their e0 ects

on the degree of access and control of women over land

resources.

6.2 A thorough study of customary laws, especially as they

pertain to land (such as the tarsilah) and the resolution of

disputes, including rituals of harmony and healing. While

there are numerous anthropological and ethnographic stud-

ies conducted in the Philippines, no comprehensive and ex-

haustive study of customary laws have been conducted as of

yet. The modes of land acquisition of Maranaos are di0 erent

from Maguindanaoans, and perhaps from the other tribes as

well. Rituals of harmony and healing abound and are un-

doubtedly vary from one tribe to another, yet these are not

su3 ciently harnessed to inform and enhance confl ict reso-

lution strategies. Various legends and historical accounts

that are orally passed on from one generation to another are

gradually getting lost. One such oral history is that of the

Tedurays and the Moro who once believed that they come

from the same lineage. The possibilities of interfacing these

rituals, practices and legends with various confl ict resolu-

tion mechanisms will greatly enrich peace building e0 orts in

Mindanao and elsewhere.

6.3 Causal relations between land confl icts and insurgency,

including links between local confl icts and national policy.

This study had indirectly shown that such causal relation-

ships exist, but there is a dearth of data and information to

prove such relationships. Local and national e0 orts to pro-

mote peace and fi nd a lasting solution to land confl icts will

benefi t from such enrichment of data and information.

6.4 Related to the above but of di0 erent dimension perhaps is a

study that could surface a widely perceived but as of yet un-

proven collusion between national and regional governments

and elites/ big landowners from Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao

to occupy large tracts of lands in Mindanao. There is much

mystery in how modern-day elites, both Christian and Moro,

managed to acquire vast tracts of land despite limitations

on hectarage allowed for each individual land owner, even

under such colonial land policies. The cases presented in

this study variously touched on bureaucrats and personnel

of land titling bodies that have colluded with parties, elite

or not, to obtain titles to parcels of land. Future studies that

expose these points of rent-seeking activities in land dispo-

sition will be of high interest to various stakeholders.



Selected Readings and References

Introduction

Alim, G., Bulao, J., & Kulat, I. (2007). Understanding inter-ethnic

confl icts in North Cotabato and Bukidnon. In W. M. III

Torres. (ed). Rido: Clan feuding and confl ict management in

Mindanao. Makati City, Philippines: The Asia Foundation.

Harre, R. & van Langenhove, L. (1999) Positioning theory: Moral

contexts of intentional action. USA: Blackwell Publishers

Ltd.

Kamlian, J. (2007). Survey of feuding families and clans in selected

provinces in Mindanao. In W. M. III Torres. (ed). Rido: Clan

feuding and confl ict management in Mindanao. Makati City,

Philippines: The Asia Foundation.

Matuan, M. (2007). Inventory of existing rido in Lanao del Sur

(1994-2004). In W. M. III Torres. (ed). Rido: Clan feuding

and confl ict management in Mindanao. Makati City, Philip-

pines: The Asia Foundation.

Torres, W. M. III. (2007). Rido: Clan feuding and confl ict manage-

ment in Mindanao. Makati City, Philippines: The Asia

Foundation.

Tolibas-Nuñez, R. (1997). Roots of confl ict: Muslims, Christians,

and the Mindanao struggle. Makati City, Philippines: Asian

Institute of Management.

Section 1Historical and Situational Background of Land Tenure Disputes in

Central Mindanao

Alejo, A. S.J. (2000). Generating energies in Mt. Apo: Cultural

politics in a contested environment. Quezon City: Ateneo de

Manila University Press. 324 pages.

Asani, A. (1981). Moros - not Filipinos. Diliman Review, March-

April 1981, 27-33.

Ballesteros, A. G. (2001). A divided court: Case materials from the

constitutional challenge to the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act

of 1997. 622p.

Fernandez, P. (1976). Customary law in pre-conquest Philippines.

Quezon City: UP Law Center.

Gaspar, C. (1999). Contestations, negotiations and common actions:

A study of civil society engagement in the Arakan Manobos’

struggle for self-determination. Unpublished MA Thesis,

University of the Philippines, Quezon City.

Gatmaytan. A. ed. (2007). Negotiating autonomy: Case studies on

Philippine indigenous peoples’ land rights. Quezon City/Co-

penhagen: Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center, Inc.

and International Work Group on Indigenous A4 airs

Gowing, P. (1977). Mandate in Moroland. The American Government

of Muslim Filipinos, 1899-1920. Quezon City: Philippine

Center for Advanced Studies, UP System.

Gowing, P. (1979). Muslim Filipinos -- heritage and horizon. Quezon

City: New Day Publishers.



Hayase, S. (2007). Mindanao ethnohistory beyond nations. Quezon

City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Iribani, A. (2006). Give peace a chance: The story of the GRP-MNLF

peace talks.

Jubair, S. (1999). Bangsamoro: A nation under endless tyranny.

Kuala Lumpur: IQ Marin SDN BHD, October. Updated and

Expanded Edition.

Jubair, S. (2007). The long road to peace: Inside the GRP-MILF nego-

tiations. Cotabato City: Institute of Bangsamoro Studies.

Land Equity International (2004). Land tenure study report: Book

1 - results. Quezon City: Philippines-Australia Land Admin-

istration and Management Project (PA-LAMP).

Lynch, O. (1991). Colonial legacies in a fragile republic: A history of

Philippine land law and state formation with emphasis on

the early U.S. regime (1898-1913). USA: Yale University Law

School, PhD Dissertation.

Majul, C. A. (1973). Muslims in the Philippines. Quezon City: Asian

Center, University of the Philippines Press

Manuel, E. A. (1973). Manuvu’s social organization. Quezon City:

University of the Philippines Press. First edition published

by the Community Development Research Council, Univer-

sity of the Philippines, Quezon City.

Maquiso, E. (1977). Ulahingan series 1 [Ulahingan: An epic of the

Southern Philippines]. Dumaguete City: Elena G. Maquiso

and Silliman University Press. 290 pages..

Mastura, M. (1979). The rulers of Maguindanao in modern history,

1515-1903. Unpublished. 527p.

Mercado, E. Jr. OMI. 1999. Southern Philippines question. Cotabato

City: Notre Dame Press. Covers the implementation por-

tion of the GRP-MNLF peace agreement up to 1999.

Ramos, F. (1996). Break not the peace: The story of the GRP-MNLF

peace negotiation, 1992-1996. Manila: November.

Rodil, R. (1994). The minoritization of the indigenous peoples of

Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago. Davao City: Alternate

Forum for Research in Mindanao (AFRIM), Inc. 123p.

Rodil, R. (2003). A Story of Mindanao and Sulu in question and an-

swer. Davao City: Mincode.

Rodil, R. (1987). Bangsamoro vs. Bangsa Filipino in Cotabato: A

game of numbers or a matter of fundamental right? Moro

Kurier, July-Sept, pp. 13-16.

Rodil, R. (1990). The Lumad side on the issue of autonomy in

Mindanao. The PSSC Social Science Information, July-Sep-

tember, pp. 4-14.

Rodil, R. (1991). Solving the Mindanao confl ict through the con-

stitutional approach. PSSC Social Science Information: 19

(1 & 2): 24-35. Also in Mindanao Forum: O4 cial Journal of

MSU-Iligan Institute of Technology IX (1): 73-94.

Rodil, R. (2000). Kalinaw Mindanaw: The story of the GRP-MNLF

peace process, 1975-1996. Davao City: Alternate Forum for

Research in Mindanao (AFRIM), Inc.

Schlegel, S. (1970). Tiruray justice: Traditional Tiruray law and

morality. USA: University of California Press.

Suminguit, V. (1989). The Subanon culture in Mount Malindang: An

ethnography. Master’s Thesis, UP Diliman, Quezon City.



Tolibas – Nuñez, R. (1997). Roots of confl ict Muslims, Christians,

and the Mindanao struggle. Makati City: Asian Institute of

Management.

Torres, W. III. ed. (2007). Rido: Clan feuding and confl ict mana-

gement in Mindanao. Makati City, Philippines: The Asia

Foundation.

Vidal, A. (2004). Confl icting laws, overlapping claims: The politics

of indigenous peoples’ land rights in Mindanao. Davao City:

AFRIM - Mindanao Focus. Special Edition.

Section 2Laws and Issuances A& ecting the Moro Lands

Abbas, M. Jr. (1977). The historical, political, social and legal justifi -

cation for codifi cation and enforcement of Muslim laws and

adat laws. Mindanao Journal, Vol. III, No. 3-4, January-June

1977 pp.109-136.

Blair, E. H. & Robertson, J. (1903-1909). List of Philippine gover-

nors. In E. H. Blair and J. Robertson (eds.). The Philippine

Islands, 1493-1898. Explorations by early navigators, descrip-

tions of the islands and their peoples, their history and records

of the catholic missions, as related in the contemporaneous

books and manuscripts, showing the political, economic, com-

mercial and religious conditions of those islands from their

earliest relations with European nations to the close of the

nineteenth century (55 volumes). Cleveland: The Arthur H.

Clark Co., 1903-1909, Vol. 17, p.310.

Buat, M. (1973). Survey of Filipino Muslim adat (cutomary) law.

Mindanao Journal/Vol. 111, No. 3-4, p.9. On the codifi cation

of muslim customary (adat) and qur’anic laws, Papers of the

Sixth Annual Seminar on Islam in the Philippines and Asia,

September 20-23, 1973, Ateneo de Davao College, Davao

City.

Colchester, M. (2001). A survey of indigenous land tenure: A report

for the land tenure service of the food and agriculture or-

ganization. Moreton-in-Marsh, UK: Forest Peoples Pro-

gramme, 2001, Retrieved on May 2009 from http://www.

forestpeoples.org/documents/law_hr/fao_land_tenure_re-

port_dec01_eng.pdf.

Corpus, O. (2005). The roots of the Filipino nation, Vol.1. Quezon

city: University of the Philippines Press.

Flavier et al (2001). Comment-in-Intervention. In A. G. Ballesteros

(ed.). A divided court: Case materials from the constitutional

challenge to the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997. Phil-

ippines: LRC-KSK/Friends of the Earth Philippines. p.225.

Jubair, S. (1999). Bangsamoro: A nation under endless tyranny,

pp.95-97, pp.102-103 and pp.119-120 (Third edition, updated

and expanded). Kuala Lumpur: IQ Marin Sdn Bhd.

Lala, R. R. (1899). The Philippine islands. New York: Continental

Publishing Company, 1899 (1898), pp.58-60.



LeRoy, J. ( ). The Philipines, 1860-1898—Some Comment and Bib-

liographical Notes 1841-1898. In E. H. Blair and J. Robertson

(eds.), The Philippine islands, 1493-1898. explorations by

early navigators, descriptions of the islands and their peoples,

their history and records of the catholic missions, as related in

the contemporaneous books and manuscripts, showing the po-

litical, economic, commercial and religious conditions of those

islands from their earliest relations with European nations to

the close of the nineteenth century (55 volumes). Cleveland:

The Arthur H. Clark Co., 1903-1909, Vol. 17, p.310.

Lynch, O. Jr. (1988). Land rights, land laws and land usurpation:

The Spanish era (1565-1898). Philippine Law Journal, Vol.

63, June 1988, p.109.

Mastura, M. (2008). Outstanding issues on land ownership and

tenure. A presentation made in the Dialogue with Justice

Taihakure (Eddie) Durie initiated by the NZAID and the

BDA on March 4, 2008 at the Marco Polo Hotel, Davao City.

Muslim, M. A. & Cagoco-Guiam, R. (1999). Mindanao: Land of

promise. Retrieved on May 2009 from http://www.c-r.org/

our-work/accord/philippines-mindanao/promised-land.

php

Paderanga, C. Jr. (1955). A review of land settlements in the Phil-

ippines. In Mindanao Studies Reports, 1955/No.2, p. 14,

University of the Philippines Center for Integrative and

Development Studies.

Peña, N. (1994). Registration of land titles and deeds pp.726-738.

Manila: Rex Bookstore, Inc..

Prill-Brett, J. (2003). Changes in indigenous common property

regimes and development policies in the northern Philippines,

p.3. The paper was presented at the RCSD International

Conference Politics of the Commons: Articulating Develop-

ment and Strengthening Local Practices, 11-14 July 2003,

Lotus Pang Suan Kaew Hotel, Chiang Mai, Thailand, p.3.

Retrieved on May 2009 from http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/

archive/00001109/00/June_Prill_brett.pdf

Rodil, R. (2003). A Story of Mindanao and Sulu in question and an-

swer. p. 101. Davao City: MINCODE.

Silva, R.D. (1979). Two hills of the same land: Truth behind the Mind-

anao problem. Mindanao-Sulu: Critical Studies & Research

Group.

Vargas & Manalac (1936). Philippine land registration law. In

Sanchez v. Director of Lands, G.R. No. L-43094, August 31,

1936).

Zaide, G. & Zaide S. (1990). Philippine territory under Spanish rule

(1886). In G. Zaide and S. Zaide. Documentary sources of

Philippine history. Manila: National Book Store, 1990, Vol. 7,

Document 318, pp.346-347.

Section 3Positioning Analysis of Land Laws A1 ecting the Moro Lands

Harre, R. & van Langenhove, L. (1999) Positioning theory: Moral

contexts of intentional action. USA: Blackwell Publishers

Ltd.



Parcasio Al Haj, R. (n.d.). Review and assessment of the 1996 GRP-

OIC-MNLF peace agreement. Retrieved on July 28, 2009

from http://mnlf.net/OIC/1st%20Tripartite,%201996_PA_

update.pdf

Section 6The Canadian Experience in Resolution of Land Confl icts

Involving Aboriginal People

Dickason, O. P. (2002). Canada’s First Nations: A history of found-

ing peoples from earliest times. Ontario: Oxford University

Press.

Elliott, D. W. (2005) Law and Aboriginal Peoples in Canada. On-

tario: Captus Press.

Frideres, J.S. (1996). The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples:

The route to self-government? The Canadian Journal of

Native Studies vol. XVI, 2: 247-266

Karim, K. H. (1993). Reconstructing the multicultural community

in Canada: Discursive strategies of inclusion and exclusion.

International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society vol. 7,

2: 189-207

http://www.canadiana.org/citm/themes/aboriginals_e.html

Indian Claims Commission (http://www.indianclaims.ca/about/

process-en.asp)

Section 7Summary of Findings and Recommendations

Gatmaytan, A. (2007). Philippine indigenous peoples and the quest

for autonomy: Negotiated or compromised? In A. Gatmay-

tan (ed). Negotiating autonomy: Case studies on Philippine

indigenous peoples’ land rights (pp.1-35). Quezon City/Co-

penhagen: Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center, Inc.

and International Work Group on Indigenous A5 airs.

Myers, D. (1999). Social psychology. USA: The McGraw-Hill Compa-

nies, Inc.

Okazaki, S., David, E.J.R., Abelmann, N. (2008). Colonialism and

psychology of culture. Social and Personality Psychology

Compass 2/1 (2008), 90-106.

Ong, J.J. (2002). Jurisdiction over ancestral domains: Reconciling

the ARMM and IPRA Laws. In Ateneo Law Journal , Vol. 47,

pp. 590-623.

Santos, S. (2002). Political values, beliefs and practices. In F.

Rosario-Braid. Muslim and Christian cultures: In search

of commonalities (pp. 159-198). Manila: Asian Institute of

Journalism and Communication (AIJC) and United Nations

Educational, Scientifi c and Cultural Organization (UNES-

CO) National Commission of the Philippines.

Türkmen, S. (2003). Identity in the colonial lands: A critical

overview of the postcolonial studies. In Alternatives:

Turkish Journal of International Relations, Vol. 2 No. 3&4,

Fall&Winter, pp. 183-203.

Wol5 , J. (2001). Levelling down. In K. Dowding, J. Hughes and H.

Margetts, Macmillan (eds). Challenges to Democracy: The

PSA Yearbook 2000. London: University College London.
