WHAT IS THE CONCEPT OF JURE REGALIA?

(REGALIAN DOCTRINE)
> 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
> The FEUDAL theory of jure regalia was therefore nothing more than a natural product of conquest (just a social
construct/another theory created to clothe unjust colonization, land and resource grabbing, discrimination and abuse with
LEGITIMACY)
CONNECTED TO THIS IS THE STATES POWER OF DOMINUUM
> Capacity of the state to own or acquire propertyfoundation for the early Spanish decree embracing the feudal theory of jura
regalia
> This concept was first introduced through the Laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas
> The Philippines passed to Spain by virtue of discovery and conquest. Consequently, all lands became the exclusive
patrimony (the estate or property belonging by ancient endowment) and dominion of the Spanish Crown.
> 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
TAKE NOTE THAT THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE IS ENSHRINED IN OUR PRESENT AND PAST
CONSTITUTIONS THE 1987 CONSTITUTION PROVIDES UNDER NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY
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 1987 PROVISION HAD ITS ROOTS IN THE 1935 CONSTITUTION
WHICH PROVIDES
> 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.
THE 1973 CONSTITUTION REITERATED THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE
AS FOLLOWS
> 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 twentyfive 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.


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 States 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 wasnt obtained and petition was dismissed and the laws
validity was upheld
> Justice Kapunan: Regalian theory doesnt 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 allencompassing provisions

The Novisima Recopilacion de Leyes de las Indias started it all. The Spanish Crown put it thus:
?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.?

REGALIAN DOCTRINE

The 1935 Constitution classified lands of the public domain into agricultural, forest or timber.[40] Meanwhile, the 1973
Constitution provided the following divisions: agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential, resettlement, mineral,
timber or forest and grazing lands, and such other classes as may be provided by law,[41] giving the government great
leeway for classification.[42] Then the 1987 Constitution reverted to the 1935 Constitution classification with one
addition: national parks.[43] Of these, only agricultural lands may be alienated.[44] 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 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.[45] The doctrine
has been consistently adopted under the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions.[46]



All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the
State.[47] 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.[48] 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.[49]



Our present land law traces its roots to the Regalian Doctrine. Upon the Spanish conquest of the Philippines, ownership
of all lands, territories and possessions in the Philippines passed to the Spanish Crown.[50] The Regalian doctrine was
first introduced in the Philippines through the Laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas, which laid the foundation that
all lands that were not acquired from the Government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to the public domain.