Property rights in relation to ancestral lands have been reinforced in recent years by legislation that enabled indigenous peoples (IPs) to lay claim over large tracts of land and to negotiate the terms for their use. Secure property rights have long been argued as a crucial ingredient in economic growth and an enduring peace, yet conflict has continued to rise in the same areas where IP groups were placed in the driver's seat, where new investments, development inputs, and royalty payments for the use of IPs ancestral lands have been secured. How is it then that, despite the passage of a law recognizing ancestral land rights, a fragile peace continues to dominate in these areas? The reasons cited for the impasse are numerous, but most point to the institutional flaws and the weak capacity of actors to implement the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) uniformly and equitably. The challenge is also magnified by the enduring armed conflict in the countryside, particularly in ancestral lands, and the history of violence between rival IP groups. This discussion paper introduces an analysis of extreme cases, descriptive statistics, and other qualitative evidence to show that identity conflicts are inextricably linked to resource-related political violence and rebellion. This confluence explains the recurring violence more than the institutional weaknesses in the law. It also explains the increase in resource conflicts beneath the proxy war among IP groups in ancestral domain areas.