IP Law Flashcards
Remedies of IP’s
- File an action for reconveyance and cancellation of title; and
- File an action to remove cloud on native title.
- File a petition for cancellation on the ground of a fraudulent claim
Two facts to establish in his action to recover title to the disputed land
That the indigenous community is the owner of the land by virtue of native title; and
that the defendant had illegally dispossessed him of the same.
For an action to quiet title to prosper, two indispensable requisites must concur:
The plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable title to or interest in the real property subject of the action; and
the deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy.
Petition for cancellation on the ground of a fraudulent claim
Fraudulent Claims. — The Ancestral Domains Office may, upon written request from the ICCs/IPs, review existing claims which have been fraudulently acquired by any person or community. Any claim found to be fraudulently acquired by, and issued to, any person or community may be cancelled by the NCIP after due notice and hearing of all parties concerned.
Must be brought within 1 year from registration with the RD
General Rule of IP’s in staying in their territory
GR:The ICCs/IPs have the right to stay in their territories and not to be removed therefrom. No ICCs/IPs will be relocated without their free and prior informed consent.
When may IP’s be removed from their lands
Eminent Domain
Relocation with FPIC of community
Relocation with FPIC
- that relocation is regarded as an “exceptional” measure (this exceptional measure is due to an impending emergency, for example, a natural calamity, and that no other option is available for the safety and protection of the community, except for the community to be temporarily relocated);
- the community agreed to the relocation; and
- the community is guaranteed the right to return when the reason for the relocation has subsided, and it is now safe for the community to return.
Removal via Expropriation
Valid when:
that the Government exercises this power only for public use,
and
only upon payment of just compensation.
- In what cases can the NCIP-Regional Hearing Office (RHO) exercise its jurisdiction? Does the RHO have appellate jurisdiction?
Section 5. Jurisdiction of the RHO. - The NCIP, through its RHOs, shall have jurisdiction over the following cases arising between and among parties belonging to the same ICCs/IPs group , provided that no such dispute shall be brought to the NCIP unless the parties have exhausted all remedies provided under their customary laws. For this purpose, a *certification shall be issued by the Council of Elders/Leaders * who participated in the attempt to settle the dispute that the same has not been resolved, which certification shall be a condition precedent to the filing of a petition with the NCIP:
a. All claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs, including but not limited to the following:
* Cases affecting property rights, claims of ownership, hereditary succession, settlement of land conflicts over ancestral lands/domains of ICCs/IPs which have not been settled using customary laws;
* Actions questioning decisions of the Indigenous Political Structures only in terms of due process requirements and compliance with IPRA;
* Actions for damages based on customary laws;
* Breach of settlement agreements arising from customary law; and
* Such other cases analogous to the foregoing.
b. Violation of any provisions of IPRA, such as, but not limited to, unauthorized and/or unlawful intrusion upon any ancestral lands or domains as stated in Sec. 10, Chapter III thereof, or shall commit any of the prohibited acts mentioned in Sections 21 and 24, Chapter V, Section 33, Chapter VI thereof, which are punishable under customary laws of the ICCs/IPs concerned: Provided, that the imposable penalty shall not be cruel, degrading or inhuman; nor the same amounts to excessive fines or imposition of the death penalty. However, in the event that the aggrieved party choose to avail the remedies provided under other existing laws, the regular process in the filing of cases as provided therein shall be observed; and
c. Contempt
- Does the RHO have appellate jurisdiction?
No. (?)
- In what cases can the NCIP- Commission En Banc (CEB) exercise its jurisdiction?
Section 6. Jurisdiction of the CEB. — The CEB shall exercise original jurisdiction over the following cases:
a. Cancellation of Certificate of Ancestral Domain Titles (CADTs)/Certificate of Ancestral Land Titles (CALTs) alleged to have been fraudulently acquired and issued, provided that such case for cancellation is filed within one (1) year from the date of registration with the Register of Deeds; and
b. Contempt.
- Does the CEB have appellate jurisdiction?
Section 7, Appellate Jurisdiction of the CEB. — The CEB shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over cases decided by the RHOs.
- Can a party before the NCIP Rules of Procedure be declared in default? What if the respondent was not able to file his answer, what remedy/ies are available to the complainant?
Section 26. Failure to Answer. - Upon failure of the defendant/s or respondent/s to file his/her/their answer within the prescribed period, the hearing shall proceed and the complainant/s or petitioner/s shall be allowed to present his/her/their evidence ex-parte.
The defendants/respondents shall still be entitled to subsequent notices or processes and may only participate in the succeeding proceedings upon motion and based on meritorious grounds.
- Are compromise settlements before the Council of Leaders or Elders subject to the approval of the NCIP? Explain.
Section 34. Judgment Based on Settlement Under Customary Law or Indigenous Dispute Resolution Process. - If a settlement is reached as a result of the application of customary laws or indigenous dispute resolution processes during the COP or at any stage of the proceedings, the same shall be submitted to the RHO for the rendition of judgment based on the settlement. The minutes of the settlement proceedings, the certification signed by the elders/leaders who participated, or the certification of the mediator/conciliator or person or body that intervened in the conflict resolution is deemed sufficient to prove that the settlement process occurred and that a resolution was reached thereon.
Section 35. Judgment Based on a Compromise. - Where the parties agreed to settle the controversy during the COP or at any stage of the proceedings, an order shall be issued by the RHO directing the parties and their respective counsels to put in writing their compromise agreement within a period not exceeding ten (10) days. Judgment shall then be rendered based on the compromise agreement, which shall be considered as judgment on the merits.
- What are the modes of appeal of decisions, resolutions or orders issued by the NCIP in the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction? When is the appeal perfected?
Section 48. Appeal to the CEB. - Decisions, resolutions, or final orders of the RHO may be appealed to the CEB by filing a Memorandum on Appeal with the RHO within fifteen (15) days from the receipt thereof or from the denial of the motion for reconsideration, and serving a copy to the adverse party.
Section 49. Perfection of Appeal. - The appeal shall be perfected upon payment of the appeal fee which shall be accomplished by the appellant upon the filing of the Memorandum on Appeal . An indigent party appealing is exempted from paying the appeal fee but such fee shall be a lien on any judgment or award that may be granted favorable to said indigent party.
- Does the NCIP have subpoena powers?
RULE X - SUBPOENA AD TESTIFICANDUM AND SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
Section 94. Power to Issue Subpoena. - The CEB and the RHO, in the exercise of its quasi-judicial function may issue subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena duces tecum to compel the attendance of a witness or persons in a proceeding before it and to require the production and presentation of documents during a hearing.
Section 95. Service of the Subpoena. - The subpoena may be personally served to the person named therein or by registered mail or by private courier.
Section 96, Failure to appear. - The failure by any person without adequate cause to obey a subpoena served upon him/her shall be deemed an act in contempt of the CEB or the RHO that issued the subpoena. This provision shall not apply when the non-appearance is due to restraints imposed by customary law and/or tradition or for any other justifiable cause.
- How about the power to cite parties in contempt?
Section 97. Direct Contempt. - The CEB or the RHO may summarily pass judgment on acts of direct contempt committed in the presence of, or so near the Chairperson or any member of the CEB or the RHO, as to obstruct or interrupt the proceeding before the same, including disrespect towards the members of the CEB or the RHO, offensive behavior towards other parties, refusal to be sworn in or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe to an affidavit or deposition wien lawfully required to do so. Those found to be in direct contempt shall be punished by a fine not/exceeding Two Thousand Pesos (Php 2,000.00) or imprisonment not exceeding ten (10) days, or both, if it be committed against the CEB or any of its members; or by a fine not exceeding Two Hundred Pesos (Php 200.00) or imprisonment not exceeding one (1) day, or both, if it be committed against the RHO. The judgment of the CEB or any of its RHO on direct contempt shall be immediately executory and non-appealable.
Section 98. Indirect Contempt, - The CEB or RHO may cite and punish any person for indirect contempt on any of the grounds, as prescribed under Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court, and for this purpose, the grounds and proceedings laid down in Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court is hereby adopted. If the respondent is adjudged guilty of indirect contempt committed against the CEB or any of its members, he/she may be punished by a fine not exceeding Thirty Thousand Pesos (Php 30,000.00) or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or both. If he/she is adjudged guilty of indirect contempt committed against a RHO, he/she may be punished by a fine not exceeding Five Thousand Pesos (Php 5,000.00) or imprisonment not exceeding one (1) month, or both.
- What are the grounds of dissolving a Writ of Preliminary Injunction or Temporary Restraining Order?
Section 103, Grounds for Dissolution of the WPI or TRO. — The TRO or WPI may be dissolved on the following grounds:
a. Upon proper showing of its insufficiency; or
b. If it appears after hearing that although the applicant is entitled to the restraining order or preliminary injunction, the continuance thereof would cause irreparable damage to the party enjoined while the applicant can be fully compensated for such damages as he/she may suffer; or
c. If, after hearing, the CEB or RHO determines that the TRO/WPI no longer serves a purpose.
- Is the Revised Rules of Court of the Philippines applicable in the NCIP Rules of Procedure?
Section 108. Applicability of the Rules of Court. - The provisions of the Rules of Court which are not inconsistent herewith shall apply suppletorily whenever practicable and convenient,
- What is the quantum of proof is establishing a claim or defense under the NCIP Rules of Procedure?
Section 93. Quantum of Evidence. - Substantial evidence is necessary to establish a claim or defense under this Rules.
Ancestral Land vs Domain
D - covers not only lands, but bodies of waters and coastal areas, including natural resources inside the domains. There are included because they are use for sacred ground, hunting ground, or worship areas.
L - covers lands only
D - should be owned or possessed under a claim of ownership (pero sabi ni sir occupation AND possession daw)
L - should be occupied, possessed, and utilized by members of indigenous communities under claims of individual or traditional group ownership.
D - - belongs to the indigenous community for the use of traditional activities
L – can be claimed collectively or individually
Requirements to establish ownership for CALT/CADT
1) Possession or occupation under a claim of ownership. The ancestral domains must be held by the community under a claim of ownership. Possession which is merely temporary (such as when this was previously a relocation site of the community) or not held in the concept of owner, such as a tenant, usufruct, laborer, will not qualify as part of their ancestral domains. Importantly, occupation need not be on the entire area of the ancestral domains, since areas for traditional use form part of the ancestral domains.
2) Exclusivity in possession/occupation. The indigenous peoples (themselves, through their ancestors) own the domains communally or individually. If no longer exclusively occupied by the indigenous community, they had or still have traditional access to these areas (i.e., home ranges) for their subsistence and traditional activities. Exclusivity in possession/occupation of the ancestral domains/lands is necessary to prove ownership
3) Continuity in possession. Indigenous peoples have been in possession of these ancestral domains since time immemorial, continuously to the present, or even if possession is interrupted, because of war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a result of government projects or voluntary dealings, they can still claim ownership to these ancestral domains. Ancestral domains remain as such even when possession or occupation of the area has been interrupted by causes provided under the law, such as voluntary dealings entered into by the government and private individuals/ corporation.
Effect of free patent issued over a private land
Free Patent issued over private land is null and void, and produces no legal effects whatsoever.
private respondents a cause of action for quieting of title which is imprescriptible.
private ownership of land is not affected by the issuance of a free patent over the same land, because the Public Land Law applies only to lands of the public domain.
Pasi vs Salapong: Effect of sale of CALT without approval of chairman.
SECTION 120. Conveyance and encumbrance made by persons belonging to the so-called “non-christian Filipinos” or national cultural minorities, when proper, shall be valid if the person making the conveyance or encumbrance is able to read and can understand the language in which the instrument of conveyance or encumbrances is written. Conveyances or encumbrances made by illiterate non-Christian or literate non-Christians where the instrument of conveyance or encumbrance is in a language not understood by the said literate non-Christians shall not be valid unless duly approved by the Chairman of the Commission on National Integration.
