Separate Opinion 11 G.R. No. 224469 applicable provision in the Civil Code, custom, when duly proven, can define rights and liabilities. Customary law is a primary, not secondary, source ofrights under the IPRA and uniqueiy applies to ICCs/IPs. Its recognition does not depend on the absence of a specific provision in the civil law. The indigenous concept of ownership under customary law is specifically acknowledged and recognized, and coexists with the civil law concept and the laws on land titling and land registration. xxxx The moral import of ancestral domain, native land or being native is "belongingness" to the land, being people of the land - by sheer force of having sprung from the land since time beyond recall, and the faithful nurture of the land by the sweat of one's brow. This is fidelity of usufructuary relation to the land - the possession of stewardship through perduring, intimate tillage, and the mutuality of blessings between man and land; from man, care for land; from the land, sustenance for man. 29 Clearly, the ICCs/IPs' ownership of their ancestral domains is unique. It is different from the "titled ownership under existing laws" or "right of possession" by "national minorities" contemplated by P.D. 705. ICCs/IPs have ownership - not mere possession - that is characterized as "private but communal," a description that is antithetical to the concept of "titled ownership" as known in civil law. Given the foregoing, the letter of P.D. 705, Sec. 77 cannot be conceived to cover the cutting of timber or forest products in ancestral domains, as to do so would be a strained construction of a penal statute. It would penalize an act despite the lack of textual support to make it so. It would be an arbitrary and baseless expansion of a penal statute. The foregoing disquisition thus begs the question: If P.D. 705, Sec. 77 is not applicable to ancestral domains, does this mean that timber and forest products found therein can be cut by anyone - IPs or non-members of IPs alike - without limitations? The answer would be in the negative. In cases where non-members of IPs illegally cut trees in ancestral domains, it would still be punishable, not by P.D. 705, Sec. 77, but by the penal provisions of the IPRA, particularly Sec. 72 in relation to Sec. 10, which states: SECTION 10. Unauthorized and Unlawful Intrusion. Unauthorized and unlawful intrusion upon, or use of any portion of the ancestral domain, or any violation of the rights hereinbefore enumerated, shall be punishable under this law. Frnihermore, the Government shall take 29 Id. at 224-225. (Emphasis supplied, italics omitted)