04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly as the people adopting it, were presumed to be aware of the prevailing judicial doctrines concerning the subject of constitutional provisions, and courts should take these doctrines into consideration in construing the Constitution.[109] Having thus recognized that ancestral domains under the Constitution are considered as private property of indigenous peoples, the IPRA, by affirming or acknowledging such ownership through its various provisions, merely abides by the constitutional mandate and does not suffer any vice of unconstitutionality. Petitioners interpret the phrase "subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national development policies and programs" in Section 5, Article XII of the Constitution to mean "as subject to the provision of Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution," which vests in the State ownership of all lands of the public domain, mineral lands and other natural resources. Following this interpretation, petitioners maintain that ancestral lands and ancestral domains are the property of the State. This proposition is untenable. Indeed, Section 2, Article XII reiterates the declarations made in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions on the state policy of conservation and nationalization of lands of the public domain and natural resources, and is of paramount importance to our national economy and patrimony. A close perusal of the records of the 1986 Constitutional Commission reveals that the framers of the Constitution inserted the phrase "subject to the provisions of this Constitution" mainly to prevent the impairment of Torrens titles and other prior rights in the determination of what constitutes ancestral lands and ancestral domains, to wit: MR. NATIVIDAD. Just one question. I want to clear this section protecting ancestral lands. How does this affect the Torrens title and other prior rights? MR. BENNAGEN. I think that was also discussed in the committee hearings and we did say that in cases where due process is clearly established in terms of prior rights, these two have to be respected. MR. NATIVIDAD. The other point is: How vast is this ancestral land? it true that parts of Baguio City are considered as ancestral lands? Is MR. BENNAGEN. They could be regarded as such. If the Commissioner still recalls, in one of the publications that I provided the Commissioners, the parts could be considered as ancestral domain in relation to the whole population of Cordillera but not in relation to certain individuals or certain groups. MR. NATIVIDAD. The Commissioner means that the whole Baguio City is considered as ancestral land? MR. BENNAGEN. Yes, in the sense that it belongs to Cordillera or in the same manner that Filipinos can speak of the Philippine archipelago as ancestral land, but not in terms of the right of a particular person or particular group to exploit, utilize, or sell it. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/36882 94/148