G.R. No. 213207 , February 15, 2022
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. PASIG RIZAL CO., INC., RESPONDENT.

FACTS

This is a Separate Concurring Opinion by Justice Leonen in the case of Republic vs. Pasig Rizal Co., Inc. The opinion does not detail the specific factual background of the main case but instead provides a critical analysis of the regalian doctrine (jura regalia). Justice Leonen examines the doctrine’s constitutional basis, historical accuracy, and its impact on land ownership rights, particularly of native inhabitants.

ISSUE

The central issue addressed in this Separate Concurring Opinion is the validity and application of the regalian doctrine as a legal fiction that presumes all lands belong to the State unless proven otherwise, and its compatibility with constitutional provisions and historical recognition of native land rights.

RULING

Justice Leonen, in his Separate Concurring Opinion, argues that the regalian doctrine is a legal fiction without clear constitutional mooring. The ruling posits that:
1. Constitutional Limitation: Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution limits State ownership to “lands of the public domain,” not all lands. The due process clause (Article III, Section 1) protects all property, including undocumented lands where ownership has vested through possession or prescription.
2. Historical Basis: The doctrine lacks historical basis. Spain recognized private ownership through native custom or long-time possession, as evidenced by the Royal Decree of October 15, 1754. The opinion heavily cites Cariño v. Insular Government, where the U.S. Supreme Court held that land held under a claim of private ownership from time immemorial is presumed to have never been public land.
3. Colonial Context: The regalian doctrine is a feudal theory introduced by Spain. The American colonial period respected ownership by native custom, aiming to do justice to the natives, not exploit them. The State’s underlying title is burdened by the pre-existing rights of indigenous peoples.
4. Scope of Native Title: The right to a native title should not be limited to indigenous cultural communities. All Filipinos were once natives, and the distinction between “Christian/civilized” and “non-Christian/uncivilized” was a political colonial device. The principles in Cariño should apply to all who have possessed land in the concept of an owner since time immemorial.
5. Historical Disenfranchisement: While Spanish and American policies verbally respected native land rights, subsequent laws and practical barriers (like lack of awareness, illiteracy, and costs) led to the legal disenfranchisement of natives from their lands.
The opinion concludes by challenging the regalian doctrine’s premise and advocating for a legal framework that fully recognizes pre-existing and historically rooted rights to land.