Separate Opinion 9 G.R. No. 224469 xxxx [But] decisional law has made exception to the doctrine. As early as 1909, in the case of Carino vs. Insular Government, the court has recognized long occupancy of land by an indigenous member of the cultural communities as one of private ownership, which, in legal concept, is termed "native title." This ruling has not been overturned. In fact, it was affirmed in subsequent cases. But the executive department of the government since the American occupation has not implemented the policy. In fact, it was more honored in its breach than in its observance, its wanton disregard shown during the period of the Commonwealth and the early years of the Philippine Republic when government ~organized and supported massive resettlement of the people to the land of the ICCs. 22 Carino was also cited as one of the bases for the IPRA m the interpellations of the precursor bill in the House ofRepresentatives. 23 In jurisprudence, this concept that was rooted in Carino has been recently upheld in the case of Republic v. Cosalan, 24 where the Court held that: Ancestral lands are covered by the concept of native title that "refers to pre-conquest rights to lands and domains which, as far back as memory reaches, have been held under a claim of private ownership by ICCs/IPs, have never been public lands and are thus indisputably presumed to have been held that way since before the Spanish Conquest." To reiterate, they are considered to have never been public lands and are thus indisputably presumed to have been held that way. 25 Ancestral domains and lands are thus unique in that they were never public lands, but may include forest lands, and which the ICCs/IPs have held 22 23 24 25 Sponsorship Speech of Senator Flavier, Legislative History of SBN 1728, II RECORD SENATE l 0TH CONGRESS 2ND SESSION 253 (October 16, 1996). Interpellation of August 20, 1997, 6: 15 p.m., I RECORD HOUSE 10TH CONGRESS 3RD SESSION 514 (October 20, 1997): MR. OSMENA. But you are vesting economic rights upon this community. This is where my whole problem is. Because a Christian Filipino who wants to mine chrome, iron ore, or whatever, has to go to the Department of Energy and Natural Resources and apply for mineral sharing agreements and file a lot of papers. In our Constitution, natural resources are national patrimony. But in this bill, you have - in face, I do not know how is the constitutionality of this provision, you are now giving mineral rights to the members of a cultural community. Is that a correct interpretation, Your Honor? MR. ANDOLANA. Yes, to some extent, it may be interpreted that way. In fact, the committee has considered that vested prior rights must be respected in a claim of mineral or natural resources. MR. OSMENA. Again, Your Honor ... MR. ANDOLANA. But when we are going to recall a decision of the US Supreme Court when we were still under the United States of America, in the case of Carilio vs. Insular Government, tl}ese rights are already vested even before the establishment of the Republic of the Philippines and even before the Spanish regime. (Emphasis supplied) Republic v. Cosalan, G.R. No. 216999, July 4, 2018, 870 SCRA 575. Id. at 587. (Emphasis supplied)