GENERAL SANTOS CITY (January 8) — The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) in Region 12 is investigating reports that leaders of B’laan communities are allegedly selling ancestral land domains in General Santos City to local and foreign investors, raising concerns over land grabbing as urban and commercial expansion pushes deeper into Indigenous territories.
NCIP-12 Regional Director Adolf Ryan Lantion said the reported transactions involve hundreds of hectares of ancestral land covered by Certificates of Ancestral Land Title (CALT) and Certificates of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) in General Santos City, an area experiencing rapid growth driven by agribusiness, real estate, and infrastructure projects.
“These reports are serious and long-standing,” Lantion said, emphasizing that the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) does not allow the sale of ancestral land domains to non-Indigenous individuals or corporations.
Development pressure, legal limits
As General Santos continues to expand beyond its urban core, Indigenous lands on the city’s fringes have become increasingly attractive to investors seeking large, contiguous tracts for commercial use. NCIP officials warned that this pressure often leads to informal or questionable transactions that blur the line between legal land use and illegal dispossession.
Under Republic Act 8371, ancestral lands are recognized as private but communal property of Indigenous peoples. While IPRA allows non-IP entities to lease or use such lands with consent, outright sale is prohibited.
Lantion said the presence of CALT and CADT documents has fueled a dangerous misconception that ancestral lands can be sold like private property.
“The titles confirm ownership by the community, not the right to alienate the land,” he said.
Vulnerability to land grabbing
NCIP acknowledged that some Indigenous leaders may be enticed by immediate financial gain, especially as land values rise alongside development. This dynamic, officials said, creates conditions that can lead to exploitation—either by investors who assume the risk or by intermediaries who capitalize on legal gray areas.
“This is not just a legal issue. It’s a development and equity issue,” Lantion said, adding that the commission is examining whether community consent was properly obtained or whether individual leaders acted beyond their authority.
Investors warned, lands protected
NCIP stressed that investors who enter into such deals face significant legal risk, as ancestral land transactions that violate IPRA can be nullified. In such cases, lands may be returned to Indigenous communities regardless of payments made.
“The law will still favor Indigenous peoples,” Lantion said, noting that NCIP can cancel land sales tied to CALT and CADT if violations are established.
The investigation is ongoing, with NCIP reviewing reported sales to determine accountability and prevent further encroachment into ancestral domains.
For Indigenous communities and city residents alike, NCIP said the case underscores a broader challenge: how to manage development without sacrificing legally protected ancestral lands—or turning economic pressure into permanent dispossession.
