04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Clearly, under the above-quoted provision of IPRA, ancestral domains of ICCs/IPs encompass the natural resources found therein. And Section 7 guarantees recognition and protection of their rights of ownership and possession over such domains. The indigenous concept of ownership, as defined under Section 5 of the law, "holds that ancestral domains are the ICC's/IP's private but community property which belongs to all generations and therefore cannot be sold, disposed or destroyed." Simply put, the law declares that ancestral domains, including the natural resources found therein, are owned by ICCs/IPs and cannot be sold, disposed or destroyed. Not only does it vest ownership, as understood under the Civil Code; it adds perpetual exclusivity. This means that while ICCs/IPs could own vast ancestral domains, the majority of Filipinos who are not indigenous can never own any part thereof. On the other hand, Section 3 (b)[25] of IPRA defines ancestral lands as referring to "lands occupied, possessed and utilized by individuals, families and clans of the ICCs/IPs since time immemorial x x x, under claims of individual or traditional group ownership, x x x including, but not limited to, residential lots, rice terraces or paddies, private forests, swidden farms and tree lots." Section 8 recognizes and protects "the right of ownership and possession of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral lands." Such ownership need not be by virtue of a certificate of title, but simply by possession since time immemorial. I believe these statutory provisions directly contravene Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution, more specifically the declaration that the State owns all lands of the public domain, minerals and natural resources - none of which, except agricultural lands, can be alienated. In several cases, this Court has consistently held that nonagricultural land must first be reclassified and converted into alienable or disposable land for agricultural purposes by a positive act of the government.[26] Mere possession or utilization thereof, however long, does not automatically convert them into private properties.[27] The presumption is that "all lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Hence, x x x all applicants in land registration proceedings have the burden of overcoming the presumption that the land thus sought to be registered forms part of the public domain. Unless the applicant succeeds in showing by clear and convincing evidence that the property involved was acquired by him or his ancestors either by composition title from the Spanish Government or by possessory information title, or any other means for the proper acquisition of public lands, the property must be held to be part of the public domain. The applicant must present competent and persuasive proof to substantiate his claim; he may not rely on general statements, or mere conclusions of law other than factual evidence of possession and title."[28] Respondents insist, and the ponencia agrees, that paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sections 3 are merely definitions and should not be construed independently of the other provisions of the law. But, precisely, a definition is "a statement of the meaning of a word or word group."[29] It determines or settles the nature of the thing or person defined.[30] Thus, after defining a term as encompassing several items, one cannot thereafter say that the same term should be interpreted as excluding one or more of the enumerated items in its definition. For that would be misleading the people who would be bound by the law. In other words, since RA elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/36882 141/148