Before the Spanish *encomienda* system was introduced in the Philippines in the late 1500s, land allocation was generally managed through communal and customary systems rooted in kinship, stewardship, and local governance. These systems varied across geographic regions but shared common Indigenous principles of land as a shared resource rather than a private commodity.

Here is an overview, organized by geographic region, with references to support the information:

—

### 1. Luzon (Northern and Central Philippines)

Precolonial Land Tenure: In Luzon, especially among Tagalog and Kapampangan groups, land was managed at the barangay level, which was a small kinship-based political unit led by a datu. Land use was based on occupancy, cultivation, and communal recognition, not private ownership.

* Kaingin system (slash-and-burn farming): Families would clear and cultivate plots temporarily. When fertility declined, they moved to another area, which implied mobility and flexible use rights. * Pamaglilinan system (Central Luzon): In Pampanga, lands were cleared and temporarily held by individual families with the datu's consent, but ultimate control remained communal or under the datu's stewardship.

Reference:

* William Henry Scott, *Barangay: Sixteenth-Century Philippine Culture and Society* (1994), Chapter 3: Land and Livelihood * Laura L. Junker, *Raiding, Trading, and Feasting: The Political Economy of Philippine Chiefdoms* (1999), esp. on lowland Luzon

—

### 2. Cordillera (Northern Highlands of Luzon)

Indigenous Communal Tenure: The Igorot and other Cordilleran groups practiced very stable, long-term communal tenure, with land viewed as ancestral and inalienable. The village community held land in common, especially rice terraces and communal forests, with individual households allocated plots for rice or root crops based on need and tradition.

* Muyong system (Ifugao): A clan-managed forest zone protected for watershed and future use. * Bayanihan: Collective work systems in managing and maintaining irrigation and rice terraces.

Reference:

* Carmelita C. Abaño, “Indigenous Land Rights and the Philippine Legal Framework” (2010) * UNESCO, “Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras” World Heritage Documentation (1995)

—

### 3. Visayas (Central Philippines)

Shared Land Stewardship: Among the Cebuano, Ilonggo, and Waray, land was generally used according to the ability to cultivate. Use rights were earned through *actual labor* rather than legal title, and surplus land was left fallow or open for others.

* Chiefs or datus might oversee resource access (e.g., fishing grounds, forests), but could not sell land. * Coastal and riverine areas had overlapping claims, particularly for fishponds or salt beds, regulated by custom and local consensus.

Reference:

* F. Landa Jocano, *The Filipino Prehistory: Rediscovering Precolonial Heritage* (2001) * Alicia P. Magos, *The Enduring Ma-aram Tradition: An Ethnography of a Kinaray-a Village in Antique* (2003)

—

### 4. Mindanao

Customary and Islamic Tenure Systems: In Muslim areas of Mindanao, particularly the Sulu Sultanate and Maguindanao Sultanate, Islamic influences introduced more formalized landholding concepts, but these still did not resemble European property rights.

* Land was either communal or under the control of *panglima* (local leaders) and *datus*, who administered but did not own land. * In non-Islamic highland areas, such as with the Manobo, Subanen, or Lumad peoples, land was part of sacred ancestral domains and used collectively by clans or communities.

Reference:

* Eric Casiño, *Mindanao: Land of Promise* (2000) * Amina Rasul, “Islam and Democracy in the Philippines” (2009)

—

### Summary

Across the archipelago, land was viewed as a communal resource or sacred trust, not a privately owned asset. Rights were linked to use, labor, ancestry, and community recognition, with leaders acting as stewards rather than owners. These Indigenous systems clashed with the Spanish *encomienda*, which imposed foreign concepts of crown ownership and tribute extraction.

—

### Additional Sources:

* National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), *Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plan (ADSDPP)* * Candelaria, Sedfrey M. and Antonio P. Contreras, “Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in the Philippines: Legal and Institutional Frameworks,” (UNDP, 2004) * Spanish-era accounts: Antonio de Morga’s *Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas* (1609)