Land Conflicts in Buguias Central
Property disputes in Buguias hinge largely on conflicting interpretations of the shoddy American surveys. The first such survey (made in 1903) has generated the most intractable litigation. Since most community members supported the later property examination of the 1930s, and since the subsidiary oral agreements devised at that time are still remembered, it has proved less contentious. But some of the best agricultural and commercial lands in Buguias remain under fervently disputed 1903 titles.
Land pirates, individuals who attempt to arrogate private parcels through legal conniving, cause the most serious property conflicts in Buguias. Their legal standings derive from colonial blunders; ancestors of the pirates were the compliant dummy owners of the large tracts titled in 1903. At the time, numerous individuals cultivated these plots, and since their holdings passed down and were subdivided during the intervening generations, an even larger group now tills and claims them. That a descendant of the original title holder would go to court seeking the entire estate represents a betrayal of community trust. Not surprisingly, the several land pirates reside not in Buguias but in Baguio City. If they succeed in gaining control, they plan to sell or lease the land back to the present cultivators, making a tidy profit in the process.
A descendant of a dummy owner won the first major case, the court ruling that both the original title and its inheritance were valid under Philippine law. But this individual has not realized his victory, since the occupants have simply resisted the order, hoping that a presidential review will overturn the ruling. A similar case has remained in court, undecided, for ten years. Community leaders fear that another unfavorable decision could endanger the existing unofficial community authority. But the court itself is seem-
ingly stumped by the issue's complexity; the parcel in question has been divided, subdivided, and partly mortgaged and resold on many occasions. Moreover, this involves the delicate and politically charged issue of indigenous land rights, raising questions the jurists may well find daunting.
The most important property struggle in Buguias has a somewhat different origin. The parcel in question, located in the village's very heart, was originally, and correctly, listed as the property of Danggol. It passed through customary inheritance to one of his sons, who, since he did not wish to pay taxes, simply relinquished his claim. One of his brothers then assumed the tax burden in return for the title. When this man subsequently married into a powerful family in Kabayan he lost interest in his Buguias property. But his son (whom I will call "E. K.") decided to press the claim, and he has engaged virtually the entire community of Buguias in court battle.
This struggle is especially significant because of E. K.'s expertise in indigenous land rights. As an officer in OMACC (Office of Muslim Affairs and Cultural Communities), he has traveled to many areas where tribal peoples have been victimized by outside land-grabbers. Although his duties there involved protecting the victims of land piracy, he has used his knowledge and position to enhance his own acquisitions in Benguet.
While E. K.'s actions may at first glance seem hypocritical, at a deeper level they are fully consistent with his official duties. State agencies such as OMACC (and its predecessor PANAMIN [Roccamora 1979]) have endeavored not so much to protect indigenous land rights as to privatize community territory. In so doing, to be sure, they have sought to "give" each indigenous family an allotment. But when land is made fully private, individuals become free to accumulate property through any legal means. E. K. has now set himself to do precisely this, arguing that the Buguias people cling to an outmoded land system that impossibly combines customary and state law. What they must do, he insists, is discard all oral agreements and henceforth work through official channels.
While his case lingers in court, E. K. has met repeatedly with the Buguias people in tong tongan. He is willing to relinquish some claims, but he steadfastly demands rent on all commercial properties. The store owners fear that he may be powerful enough to
force an unpleasant outcome, and most would reluctantly compromise. But as of 1986, no reasonable offer had been made.
The American land-survey system ensured the present-day property conflicts. Customary land rights were too complex to be accurately represented by a simple survey using Western categories of land ownership—even if the survey teams had been trustworthy and adequately funded. As it was, while the Buguias people could only comply with the colonialists on the surface, they had to retain oral agreements to apportion actual land control.
As memory decays, oral agreements are revised retroactively through self-interested reinterpretation—but land titles retain solidity. Yet the Buguias people cannot afford legalities. The mere cost of surveying exceeds the budgets of most farmers. Land titles, even if undisputed, must therefore pass to a single offspring, who must then be trusted by his or her siblings; moreover, this trust must pass into subsequent generations. Some persons have attempted to sidestep such problems by attaching notes to their titles detailing all relevant oral agreements, but these are of questionable legal validity.
Many contemporary land disputes are indeed settled in tong tongan, a testament to the institution's flexibility and to the diplomatic skill of the Buguias elders. But indigenous conceptions of property rights have changed since the war, and aspects of the imposed Western system have been adopted for specific circumstances. As a result, even if the clogged Philippine legal system could be entirely bypassed, customary law could not immediately handle the existing backlog of cases.