04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly applies only to alienable lands of the public domain and, thus, cannot be extended to other lands of the public domain such as forest or timber, mineral lands, and national parks. Fourth, the Solicitor General asserts that even assuming that native title over ancestral lands and ancestral domains existed by virtue of the Cariño doctrine, such native title was extinguished upon the ratification of the 1935 Constitution. Fifth, petitioners admit that Congress is mandated under Section 5, Article XII of the Constitution to protect that rights of indigenous peoples to their ancestral lands and ancestral domains. However, they contend that the mandate is subject to Section 2, Article XII and the theory of jura regalia embodied therein. According to petitioners, the recognition and protection under R.A. 8371 of the right of ownership over ancestral lands and ancestral domains is far in excess of the legislative power and constitutional mandate of Congress. Finally, on the premise that ancestral lands and ancestral domains are owned by the State, petitioners posit that R.A. 8371 violates Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution which prohibits the alienation of nonagricultural lands of the public domain and other natural resources. I am not persuaded by these contentions. Undue reliance by petitioners and the Solicitor General on the theory of jura regalia is understandable. Not only is the theory well recognized in our legal system; it has been regarded, almost with reverence, as the immutable postulate of Philippine land law. It has been incorporated into our fundamental law and has been recognized by the Court.[67] Generally, under the concept of jura regalia, 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. The belief that the Spanish Crown is the origin of all land titles in the Philippines has persisted because title to land must emanate from some source for it cannot issue forth from nowhere.[68] In its broad sense, the term "jura regalia" refers to royal rights,[69] or those rights which the King has by virtue of his prerogatives.[70] In Spanish law, it refers to a right which the sovereign has over anything in which a subject has a right of property or propriedad.[71] These were rights enjoyed during feudal times by the king as the sovereign. The theory of the feudal system was that title to all lands was originally held by the King, and while the use of lands was granted out to others who were permitted to hold them under certain conditions, the King theoretically retained the title.[72] By fiction of law, the King was regarded as the original proprietor of all lands, and the true and only source of title, and from him all lands were held.[73] The theory of jura regalia was therefore nothing more than a natural fruit of conquest.[74] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/36882 87/148