Scribd
Upload
59 views2 pages

B. Agnes v. Republic, GR 156022, July 6, 2015

The petitioners in this case were among the original settlers of Calauit Island but were removed when the island was declared a wildlife sanctuary. They claim their repossession of the island is lawful. The respondents argue the petitioners waived rights to the island by signing resettlement agreements. The Supreme Court held that the issuance of a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title to the Tagbanua Indigenous Cultural Community, which includes Calauit Island, renders the issue of the resettlement agreements moot, as the CADT recognizes the right of the indigenous group to stay in and manage the territory.

Uploaded by

Benedicto Pintor
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
59 views2 pages

B. Agnes v. Republic, GR 156022, July 6, 2015

The petitioners in this case were among the original settlers of Calauit Island but were removed when the island was declared a wildlife sanctuary. They claim their repossession of the island is lawful. The respondents argue the petitioners waived rights to the island by signing resettlement agreements. The Supreme Court held that the issuance of a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title to the Tagbanua Indigenous Cultural Community, which includes Calauit Island, renders the issue of the resettlement agreements moot, as the CADT recognizes the right of the indigenous group to stay in and manage the territory.

Uploaded by

Benedicto Pintor
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

AGNES vs.

REPUBLIC
G.R. No. 156022, July 06, 2015
Leonardo-De Castro, J.

FACTS:

Petitioners claim to be among the first settlers in Calauit as successors of the early settlers
therein. Petitioners were removed from Calauit as the island was going to be set up as a zoo for
rare and exotic animals. In 1976, then President Marcos signed Presidential Proclamation No.
1578 declaring the Island of Calauit as a Game Preserve and Wildlife Sanctuary. President
Marcos then issued another proclamation, excluding certain portions of the Reservation and
opening them to disposition under the provisions of the Public Land Act as resettlement areas for
the settlers of Calauit, but found unsuitable for habitation by the petitioners. Thus, petitioners
returned to Calauit Island.

Respondents alleged that the petitioners' repossession and reoccupation of portions of Calauit are
patently unlawful and grossly reproachable as they had already waived and relinquished
whatever rights they had on the island when they signed and executed their respective
Resettlement Agreements. The respondent also complained of the great damage and disturbance
the petitioners were doing to the natural resources and the protected animals in Calauit.

In 2008, during the pendency of the case in the Supreme Court, pursuant to Republic Act No.
8371, entitled "The Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act of 1997," the Office of the President, through
the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), issued a Certificate of Ancestral
Domain Title (CADT) over lands in the Municipality of Busuanga, Province of Palawan, in favor
of the Tagbanua Indigenous Cultural Community, which comprised the communities of
Barangays Calauit and Quezon, Calauit Island, and Municipality of Busuanga. Petitioners
averred that the issuance of the CADT "in favor of the Tagbanua Indigenous Cultural
Community amounts to an affirmation and recognition of the property rights of their ancestors
from whom they traced their present individual claims.”

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioners may be compelled to vacate Calauit by virtue of their obligations
enumerated in the Resettlement Agreements.

HELD:

No. With the issuance by the Office of the President of the CADT, an ostensive successor to the
Resettlement Agreements, to the Tagbanua Indigenous Cultural Community (ICC), the
resolution of the question on the propriety or impropriety of the latter contract and their effects
on the continued stay of the settlers on Calauit appears to have been rendered moot and
academic.

The right to ancestral domain carries with it the right to "stay in the territory and not to be
removed therefrom." And the CADT was issued notwithstanding the existence of Presidential
Proclamation No. 1578, which recognized the existence of private rights already extant at the
time. Thus, although the issuance of the CADT in favor of the Tagbanua ICC to develop, control,
manage, and utilize Calauit does not affect the propriety or impropriety of the execution of the
Resettlement Agreements per se, the same, however, gainsays the avowed consequence of said
contracts, that is, to remove and transfer the settlers from Calauit to the resettlement areas.

You might also like