Decision G.R. No. 224469 42 2. Establish and activate indigenous practices or culturally-founded strategies to protect, conserve and develop the natural resources and wildlife sanctuaries in the domain; 3. Restore, preserve and maintain a bal~nced ecology in the ancestral domain by protecting flora, fauna, watershed areas, and other forest and mineral reserves; 4. Protect and conserve forest trees and other vegetation naturally growing on the land specially along rivers, streams and channels; 5. Preservation of natural features of the domain. 108 A CADC affirms practically the same rights as those recognized in the IPRA as incidents of IP title. As possessors of a CADC, the IrayaMangyan IPs, including herein accused, have been confirmed to have the right to the exclusive communal use and occupation of the ancestral domain covering a designated territory within the municipality of San Teodoro for a variety of purposes, including limited non-traditional purposes and the right to enjoy its economic fruits. There are however, as stated, clear limitations to these rights - the exclusive uses of the ancestral domain should be consistent with the communal and ongoing nature of the IPs' attachment to the ancestral domain, the preservation of the IPs' cultural integrity, and the ability of future generations to benefit from it. These limitations can be inferred from the IPs' responsibility above-mentioned to "[e]stablish and activate indigenous practices or culturally-founded strategies to protect, conserve and develop the natural resources and wildlife sanctuaries in the domain," together with IPRA's indigenous concept of ownership that "ancestral domains and all resources.found therein shall serve as the material bases of their cultural integrity" and that ancestral domains are private but community property which belongs to all generations. While ownership itself is not a defense to a prosecution for violation of Section 77, PD 705 as amended, as police power invariably trumps ownership, the subject IP rights are not themselves the same as the ownership proscribed as a defense in this type of offense. The IP rights are to preserve their cultural integrity, primordially a social and cultural and also a collective right. . ~ On the other hand, the claim or title to ancestral domains and land is sui generis ownership that is curiously identical to the purpose for which Section 77 as a police power measure was legislated - the protection and promotion of a healthy and clean ecology and environment through sustainable use of timber and other forest products. Thus, the purpose for requiring State authority before one may cut and collect timber is claimed to have been satisfied by the sui ,?eneris ownership which IPs possess. This parallelism all the more supports our conclusion 108 DENR AO No. 02-93, Rules and Regulations for the Identification, Delineation and Recognition of Ancestral Land and Domain Claims.