Practice question
A nonmember acquires ancestral land rights from an ICC/IP transferor. The record establishes an unconscionable consideration but does not establish vitiated consent. Redemption is sought within the statutory period. The buyer argues that absence of vitiation alone defeats Section 8(b), regardless of the proved price. Which reading is correct?
- Vitiated consent and unconscionable price must always both be proved
- The price is irrelevant whenever a document is signed
- Only the buyer’s citizenship matters
- The statute states alternative grounds, so the proved unconscionable consideration is not defeated solely by absence of the other ground
- Section 8(b) applies only after a century
Legal references
- RA 8371, Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act, Chapters I–III: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1997/ra_8371_1997.html; Section 8(b).
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.