The Regalian Doctrine

The Regalian Doctrine, also known as “jura regalia”, is a fiction of Spanish colonial law that has been said
to apply to all Spanish colonial holdings. More specifically, the Regalian Doctrine 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. Generally, under this concept, private
title to land must be traced to some grant, express or implied, from the Spanish Crown or its successors,
the American Colonial Government, and thereafter, the Philippine Republic. In a broad sense, the term
refers to royal rights, or those rights to which the King has by virtue of his prerogatives.

Based on the Laws of the Indies, the capacity of the State to own or acquire property is the state's
power of dominium, as cited in the Cruz v. DENR case*. This was the foundation for the early Spanish
decrees embracing the feudal theory of jura regalia. The "Regalian Doctrine" or jura regalia is a Western
legal concept that was first introduced by the Spaniards into the country through the Laws of the Indies
and the Royal Cedulas. The Laws of the Indies, i.e., more specifically, Law 14, Title 12, Book 4 of the
Novisima Recopilacion de Leyes de las Indias, set the policy of the Spanish Crown with respect to the
Philippine Islands in the following manner: "We, having acquired full sovereignty over the Indies, and all
lands, territories, and possessions not heretofore ceded away by our royal predecessors, or by us, or in
our name, still pertaining to the royal crown and patrimony, it is our will that all lands which are held
without proper and true deeds of grant be restored to us as they belong to us, in order that after
reserving before all what to us or to our viceroys, audiencias, and governors may seem necessary for
public squares, ways, pastures, and commons in those places which are peopled, taking into
consideration not only their present condition, but also their future and their probable increase, and
after distributing to the natives what may be necessary for tillage and pasturage, confirming them in
what they now have and giving them more if necessary, all the rest of said lands may remain free and
unencumbered for us to dispose of as we may wish.”

The Philippines passed to Spain by virtue of "discovery" and conquest. Consequently, all lands became
the exclusive patrimony and dominion of the Spanish Crown. The Spanish Government took charge of
distributing the lands by issuing royal grants and concessions to Spaniards, both military and civilian.
Private land titles could only be acquired from the government either by purchase or by the various
modes of land grant from the Crown (Cruz v. DENR).

The Regalian Doctrine dictates that all lands of the public domain belong to the State, that the State is
the source of any asserted right to ownership of land and charged with the conservation of such
patrimony. The doctrine has been consistently adopted under the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions.
All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the
State. Thus, all lands that have not been acquired from the government, either by purchase or by grant,
belong to the State as part of the inalienable public domain. Necessarily, it is up to the State to
determine if lands of the public domain will be disposed of for private ownership. The government, as
the agent of the state, is possessed of the plenary power as the persona in law to determine who shall
be the favored recipients of public lands, as well as under what terms they may be granted such
privilege, not excluding the placing of obstacles in the way of their exercise of what otherwise would be
ordinary acts of ownership.

 The Law of the Indies was followed by the Ley Hipotecaria or the Mortgage Law of 1893. This
law provided for the systematic registration of titles and deeds as well as possessory claims.
 The Maura Law: was partly an amendment and was the last Spanish land law promulgated in the
Philippines, which required the adjustment or registration of all agricultural lands, otherwise the
lands shall revert to the State.

The Regalian Doctrine and the Philippine Constitution

The Regalian Doctrine is enshrined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution and the country’s earlier
Constitutions. In the 1987 Constitution, Section 2 of Article XII (National Economy and Patrimony)
provides the following:

Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all
forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural
resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources
shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under
the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may
enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or
corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such
agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-
five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for
irrigation, water supply fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power,
beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.

The abovementioned provision provides that except for agricultural lands for public domain which alone
may be alienated, forest or timber, and mineral lands, as well as all other natural resources must remain
with the State, the exploration, development and utilization of which shall be subject to its full control
and supervision albeit allowing it to enter into coproduction, joint venture or production-sharing
agreements, or into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving technical or financial
assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization.

The said provision in the 1987 Philippine Constitution had its roots in the 1935 Philippine Constitution.
Section 1 of Article XIII (Conservation and Utilization of Natural Resources) of the 1935 Philippine
Constitution provides the following:

Section 1. All agricultural timber, and mineral lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal,
petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy and other natural resources of the
Philippines belong to the State, and their disposition, exploitation, development, or utilization shall be
limited to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the
capital of which is owned by such citizens, subject to any existing right, grant, lease, or concession at the
time of the inauguration of the Government established under this Constitution. Natural resources, with
the exception of public agricultural land, shall not be alienated, and no license, concession, or lease for
the exploitation, development, or utilization of any of the natural resources shall be granted for a period
exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for another twenty-five years, except as to water rights for
irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, in which
cases beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.

Then in the 1973 Philippine Constitution, the classifications of land and the Regalian Doctrine are
provided under Section 8, Article XIV (The National Economy and The Patrimony of The Nation), which
states the following:

Section 8. All lands of public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other mineral oils, all forces
of potential energy, fisheries, wildlife, and other natural resources of the Philippines 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
five years, except as to water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than
development of water power, in which cases, beneficial use may by the measure and the limit of the
grant.

As shown in the above provisions, the 1935 Constitution classified lands of the public domain into
agricultural, forest or timber. Meanwhile, the 1973 Constitution provided the following classifications:
agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential, resettlement, mineral, timber or forest and grazing
lands, and such other classes as may be provided by law, giving the government great leeway for
classification. However, the 1987 Constitution reverted to the 1935 Constitution classification with one
addition—national parks. Of these classifications, only agricultural lands may be alienated. Prior to
Proclamation No. 1064 of May 22, 2006, Boracay Island had never been expressly and administratively
classified under any of these grand divisions. Boracay was an unclassified land of the public domain.

THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE DOESN'T NEGATE NATIVE TITLE. THIS IS IN PURSUANCE TO WHAT HAS BEEN
HELD IN CRUZ V. SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

> Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Indigenous Peoples Rights Act on the ground that it
amounts to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of the public domain and all
other natural resources therein, by recognizing the right of ownership of ICC or IPs to their ancestral
domains and ancestral lands on the basis of native title.

> As the votes were equally divided, the necessary majority wasn’t obtained and petition was dismissed
and the law’s validity was upheld

> Justice Kapunan: Regalian theory doesn’t negate the native title to lands held in private ownership
since time immemorial, adverting to the landmark case of CARINO V. LOCAL GOVERNMENT, where the
US SC through Holmes held: “xxx 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.”
> Existence of native titie to land, or ownership of land by Filipinos by virtue of possession under a claim
of ownership since time immemorial and independent of any grant from the Spanish crown as an
exception to the theory of jure regalia

> Justice Puno: Carino case firmly established a concept of private land title that existed irrespective of
any royal grant from the State and was based on the strong mandate extended to the Islands via the
Philippine Bill of 1902. The IPRA recognizes the existence of ICCs/IPs as a distinct sector in the society. It
grants this people the ownership and possession of their ancestral domains and ancestral lands and
defines the extent of these lands and domains

> Justice Vitug: Carino cannot override the collective will of the people expressed in the Constitution.

> Justice Panganiban: all Filipinos, whether indigenous or not, are subject to the Constitution, and that
no one is exempt from its all encompassing provisions.

Further explanation: Cruz vs Secretary of DENR

Natural Resources and Environmental Law; Constitutional Law; IPRA; Regalian Doctrine

GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000

FACTS:

Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for prohibition and mandamus as citizens and
taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise
known as the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its implementing rules and regulations
(IRR). The petitioners assail certain provisions of the IPRA and its IRR on the ground that these amount
to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals
and other natural resources therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in section 2, Article
XII of the Constitution.

ISSUE:

Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution?

HELD:

No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution. Examining the IPRA, there is nothing in
the law that grants to the ICCs/IPs ownership over the natural resources within their ancestral domain.
Ownership over the natural resources in the ancestral domains remains with the State and the rights
granted by the IPRA to the ICCs/IPs over the natural resources in their ancestral domains merely gives
them, as owners and occupants of the land on which the resources are found, the right to the small
scale utilization of these resources, and at the same time, a priority in their large scale development and
exploitation.
Additionally, ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not part of the lands of the public domain. They
are private lands and belong to the ICCs/IPs by native title, which is a concept of private land title that
existed irrespective of any royal grant from the State. However, the right of ownership and possession
by the ICCs/IPs of their ancestral domains is a limited form of ownership and does not include the right
to alienate the same.