*
LOLOY UNDURAN, BARANGAY CAPTAIN ROMEO
PACANA, NESTOR MACAPAYAG, RUPERTO DOGIA,
JIMMY TALINO, ERMELITO ANGEL, PETOY BESTO,
VICTORINO ANGEL, RUEL BOLING, JERMY ANGEL,
BERTING SULOD, RIO BESTO, BENDIJO SIMBALAN,
and MARK BRAZIL, petitioners, vs. RAMON
ABERASTURI, CRISTINA C. LOPEZ, CESAR LOPEZ JR.,
DIONISIO A. LOPEZ, MERCEDES L. GASTON, AGNES
H. LOPEZ, EUSEBIO S. LOPEZ, JOSE MARIA S. LOPEZ,
ANTON B. ABERASTURI, MA. RAISSA A. VELEZ, ZOILO
ANTONIO A. VELEZ, CRISTINA ABERASTURI,
EDUARDO LOPEZ JR., ROSARIO S. LOPEZ, JUAN S.
LOPEZ, CESAR ANTHONY R. LOPEZ, VENANCIO L.
GASTON, ROSEMARIE S. LOPEZ, JAY A. ASUNCION,
NICOLO ABERASTURI, LISA A. ASUNCION, INEZ A.
VERAY, HERNAN A. ASUNCION, ASUNCION LOPEZ,
THOMAS A. VELEZ, LUIS ENRIQUE VELEZ, ANTONIO
H. LOPEZ, CHARLES H. LOPEZ, ANA L. ZAYCO, PILAR
L. QUIROS, CRISTINA L. PICAZO, RENATO SANTOS,
GERALDINE AGUIRRE, MARIA CARMENCITA T.
LOPEZ, and as represented by Attorney-in-Fact RAMON
ABERASTURI, respondents.
_______________
* EN BANC.
115
116
117
VOL. 773, OCTOBER 20, 2015 117
Unduran vs. Aberasturi
119
120
121
122
ment. Any rule that is not consistent with the statute itself is
null and void.As earlier discussed, Section 66 of R.A. No. 8371
is explicit that the NCIPs jurisdiction is confined only to claims
and disputes where the parties are both ICCs/IPs. Such being the
case, the second paragraph of Rule IX, Section 1 of the IRR of R.A.
No. 8371 should be declared null and void because it is contrary to
the provision of Section 66 of the IPRA. It is well-settled that an
administrative rule or regulation must conform, not contradict,
the provisions of the enabling law. A rule or regulation cannot
modify, expand, or subtract from the law it is intended to
implement. Any rule that is not consistent with the statute itself
is null and void. Since the rule in question is at war with Section
66 of R.A. No. 8371, then it must be excised.
BRION, J., Separate Opinion:
Pleadings and Practice; Amendment of Pleadings; View that
the rule on amendments as a matter of right applies to a
codefendant who has yet to file his responsive pleading, even if his
codefendants have already done so.At the time the respondents
amended the complaint, the petitioners had yet to file their
answers to the original complaint, hence, the amendment was
still a matter of right. The rule on amendments as a matter of
right applies to a codefendant who has yet to file his responsive
pleading, even if his codefendants have already done so. Thus,
while Macapayag and Brazil have filed their answers, the
respondents still have the right to amend the complaint with
respect to the rest of the petitioners.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Courts; Jurisdiction; View
that as the ponencia pointed out, both the original and the
amended complaints do not allege that the respondents were
Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs),
or that the dispute involves an ancestral dominion. Hence, on the
face of the respondents complaint, the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
has jurisdiction over the injunction case.Jurisdiction over the
subject matter is determined by law and by the material
allegations of the complaint. Under these standards, the
petitioners argument, i.e., that the NCIP has jurisdiction because
the case involves the rights of ICCs/IPs, is without merit. As the
ponencia pointed out, both the original and the amended
complaints do not allege that the respondents were ICCs/IPs, or
that the dispute involves an ancestral dominion. Hence,
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
VOL. 773, OCTOBER 20, 2015 129
Unduran vs. Aberasturi
130
131
PERALTA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari1 assailing the
Decision2 dated August 17, 2006 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 00204-MIN, and the Resolution3
dated July 4, 2007, which denied petitioners motion for
reconsideration.
Petitioners, except for Mark Brazil and Nestor
Macapayag, are members of the Miarayon, Lapok,
Lirongan, Talaandig Tribal Association (MILALITTRA), or
Talaandig tribe, who claimed to have been living since
birth on the land located at Barangay Miarayon, Talakag,
Bukidnon, Mindanao, which they inherited from their
forefathers.
On the other hand, respondents, represented by
attorney-in-fact Ramon Aberasturi, claimed to be the
lawful owners and possessor of an unregistered parcel of
agricultural land (Lot No. 7367 Cad 630-D), with an area of
105.7361 hectares, which appears to be located within the
ancestral domain of the Talaandig tribe.
_______________
132
133
134
On April 12, 2005, petitioners filed before the Court of
Appeals a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with
Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and Issuance of a
Temporary Restraining Order.
On August 17, 2006, the CA rendered a Decision
affirming the RTCs February 14, 2005 Order, which in
turn denied the referral of the case to the NCIP, the
dispositive portion of which states:
7 Id., at p. 28.
135
The CA ruled that the RTC correctly granted the
amendment of the complaint and properly refused to refer
the case to the RHO-NCIP. Based on the allegations of both
original complaint [accion reivindicatoria] and amended
complaint [injunction], the CA found that the subject
matter of both complaints is well within the jurisdiction of
the RTC. The CA noted that the only substantial
amendment made was with regard to the nature of the
action which originally was one of accion reivindicatoria
and then changed to one for damages. And except for some
amendments as to petitioners alleged violent acts and the
prayer for declaration of their title to the subject property,
the rest of the amended complaint was basically the same
as the original one, including the reliefs prayed for by
respondents. Anent the writ of preliminary injunction, the
CA held that the RTCs assailed February 14, 2005 Order
is self-explanatory as to why the issuance of the same was
proper considering the circumstances of the case.
On July 4, 2007, the CA denied petitioners motion for
reconsideration of its August 17, 2006 Decision.
Hence, this appeal on certiorari raising the following
issues:
I. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
AFFIRMING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT A
QUO OVER A COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION
INVOLVING AN ANCESTRAL DOMAIN OF THE
TALAANDIGS.
II. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
AFFIRMING THE RESOLUTION OF THE COURT A
QUO ALLOWING THE AMENDMENT OF THE
COMPLAINT,
_______________
8 Id., at p. 348.
136
_______________
9 Id., at p. 433.
137
_______________
139
_______________
140
_______________
15 Padlan v. Dinglasan, G.R. No. 180321, March 20, 2013, 694 SCRA
91, 98.
16 Emphasis added.
141
In line with Section 69 of the IPRA on the NCIPs quasi-
judicial power to promulgate rules and regulations
governing the hearing and disposition of cases filed before
it, the NCIP issued Administrative Circular No. 1-03 dated
April 9, 2003, known as the Rules on Pleadings, Practice
and Procedure (NCIP Rules), which reiterates its
jurisdiction over claims and disputes involving rights of
ICCs/IPs and enumerates the actions that may be brought
before it. Section 5, Rule III, of the NCIP Rules provides for
the jurisdiction of the NCIP-RHO:
_______________
17 Id.
142
_______________
18 Id.
145
A careful review of Section 66 shows that the NCIP shall
have jurisdiction over claims and disputes involving rights
of ICCs/IPs only when they arise between or among parties
belonging to the same ICC/IP. This can be gathered from
the qualifying provision that no such dispute shall be
brought to the NCIP unless the parties have exhausted all
remedies provided under their customary laws. For this
purpose, a certification shall be issued by the Council of
Elders/Leaders who participated in the attempt to settle
the dispute that the same has not been resolved, which
certification shall be a condition precedent to the filing of a
petition with the NCIP.
147
_______________
20 Emphasis added.
21 Id.
150
_______________
151
_______________
152
152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Unduran vs. Aberasturi
153
CONCURRING OPINION
VELASCO, JR., J.:
I concur with the ponencia that the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) has jurisdiction over the case. Both original and
amended complaints, accion reivindicatoria and injunction,
respectively, are incapable of pecuniary estimation; thus
falling within the jurisdiction of the RTC. As correctly
pointed out by the ponencia, jurisdiction over the subject
matter of a case is conferred by law and determined by the
allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise
statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiffs
cause of action.1 It cannot be acquired through a waiver or
enlarged by the omission of the parties or conferred by the
acquiescence of the court.2
However, I would like to submit some points for
consideration which run counter to the opinion of my
esteemed colleague. It is my position that the National
Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) has jurisdiction
over all claims and disputes involving rights of Indigenous
Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs)
regardless of whether or not they belong to the same IP/IC
Community. This is pursuant to Section 66 of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 8371,3 otherwise known as The Indigenous
Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) as follows:
_______________
1 Ponencia, p. 140.
2 Gomez-Castillo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 187231, 22 June 2010, 621
SCRA 499, 507.
3 An Act To Recognize, Protect and Promote the Rights of Indigenous
Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples, Creating a National
Commission on Indigenous Peoples, Establishing Implementing
Mechanisms, Appropriating Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes
(1997).
154
_______________
156
_______________
157
_______________
8 Supra note 4.
159
_______________
9 Id.
10 Id.
160
_______________
161
_______________
163
_______________
3 See Siasoco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132753, February 15, 1999,
103 Phil. 430; 303 SCRA 186.
4 See Delbros v. IAC, No. L-72566, April 12, 1988, 159 SCRA 533.
5 Mendoza v. Germino, 650 Phil. 81; 635 SCRA 537 (2010), citing
Morta, Sr. v. Occidental, G.R. No. 123417, June 10, 1999, 308 SCRA 167.
164
_______________
6 Ponencia, p. 146.
7 Section 19(1), Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.
8 Nuez v. SLTEAS Phoenix Solutions, Inc., G.R. No. 180542, April 12,
2010, 618 SCRA 142.
165
_______________
166
_______________
Pac., 1083, Ann. Cas. [1916 E], p. 282, where these principles concerning
provisos are applied.
10 Section 15 of the IPRA.
11 Supra note 9.
167
_______________
12 Chapter III grants the ICCs/IPs the right to own and possess their
ancestral domains/lands including the right to: claim ownership; develop;
not to be relocated; be resettled, and to return in case of displacement;
regulate the entry of migrants; access integrated systems for the
management of inland waters and air space; claim parts of reservations;
resolve land conflicts in accord with customary laws of the area; transfer
lands to/among the members of the same ICCs/IPs; redeem property sold
to a nonmember of an ICC/IP, whenever necessary.
13 Chapter IV grants ICCs/IPs the right to: use their own justice
system, conflict resolution institutions and peace building processes;
determine their priorities for development; form tribal barangays.
14 Chapter V grants the ICCs/IPs the right to: equal protection of
laws; protection during armed conflicts; equal employment opportunities
and benefits; associate and to collectively bargain; basic services. In
addition, IPRA declares that ICC/IP women shall enjoy equal rights and
opportunities with men.
15 Chapter VI grants the ICCs/IPs the right to: preserve and protect
their culture, traditions and institutions; access to education; practice and
revitalize their traditions and customs; restitution of intellectual property
taken without their free consent; maintain and protect their religious and
cultural sites; use and control ceremonial objects; repatriate human
remains; full ownership, control and protection of their cultural and
intellectual rights; prevent access to biological, genetic resources and
indigenous knowledge without their free and prior consent; receive from
the national government funds earmarked for their archaeological and
historical sites.
168
_______________
169
_______________
or both such fine and imprisonment upon the discretion of the court. In
addition, he shall be obliged to pay to the ICCs/IPs concerned whatever
damage may have been suffered by the latter as a consequence of the
unlawful act.
23 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/without prejudice.
24 Section 72 of the IPRA.
25 Under Section 46(g), the NCIP-Legal Affairs Office (NCIP-LAO)
shall conduct preliminary investigations on violations of ICC/IP rights and
on the basis of its findings, initiate the filing of appropriate legal or
administrative action to the NCIP. The Legal or Administrative Action
that Section 46(g) refers to is the action to enforce punishment under
customary laws.
170
_______________
26 See Taada v. Tuvera, No. L-63915, April 24, 1985, 146 SCRA 446.
27 Section 46(g) of the IPRA.
171
_______________
28 The IPRA is the product of Senate Bill 1728 and House Bill 9125.
The bill originated from the Senate, and was the consolidation of four
separate bills: S.B. Nos. 343, 618, 1476, and 1486. Then as senator, former
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo authored Senate Bill No. 618, which
proposed the creation of the NCIP.
29 July 30, 1996 Committee on Cultural Communities; Senate
Technical Working Group.
172
Mr. Mercado:
With the non-IPs possibly which would happen. It would be easy if the
conflict could be between IPs of the same group. So it would be easier
to resolve. But paano po yung if there would be a conflict between an
IP and non-IP.
Mr. Raiz:
Non-IP.
Mr. Mercado:
Because the assumption nga oo, yong sa civil law relations, may mga
conflicts po na possible na mangyayari. So, actually, sabi ko nga,
maybe we can do away with it. Thats one issue. xxx
Mr. Austria:
Yong point ni Mike is very meritorious, yon dapat, Dahil unang una, the
IPs should themselves show to the other sectors kung ano ba yon rule
nila sa society. xxx
Ms. Damaso:
Lets go back to that discussion on the creation of a separate office on
planning and policy, and research.
I think its more germane to mention those points that Mike has
enunciated earlier that this be a primary function of that office xxx
continuing documentation of customary laws and other usage
no for complete mediation or resolution, which would be
derived from the culture base of the IPs.
........
The presiding officer:
You were mentioning iyong other groups. What about the commission?
Should they be mandated to do the research and to, you know, to
compile such laws. Kasi yung nakikita ko doon sa idea ni Mike is, like
for example, kung may conflict iyong IPs and Non-IPs, paano mo
sasabihin, although sa-
173
sabihin natin na yung customary law nga yung mag-go-govern, pero paano
natin i-po-prove although kailangan natin i-recognize na mayroon
ganuong problem. Sabihin natin its an oral practice, its an oral
customary law pero mas maganda siguro kung iyon nga kung i-
compile mo tapos eto ganito yon. So mayroon tayong pang...
Mr. Mercado:
For example po on practical ground, I think ang power is lodged with the
Commission which is collective in nature iyong mga adjudicatory
power. Assuming not all of them would belong to one tribe, they would
belong to a different sector or group. I know that it is being practiced
and its not written down, so I have to make decision also as a part of
that Commission as a commissioner based on something, so I have
to also acquaint myself on the practices of other groups because that is
part of the power of the commission to adjudicate. For practical
purposes only, how would I know the practices of the particular
groupings, which I am supposed to adjudicate, assuming that we only
have 113 tribes or groupings and we have five commissioners. Those
other five or those other commissioners who are not aware of that
particular practice, to that they will depend their judgment on. So,
there is also a need for this five commissioners to be familiar with the
practice of other groups because they will make decisions also.
Ms. Damaso:
Yeah, Mike, I think your point is to compile, meaning document.
Mr. Mercado:
Document only, hindi ho isabatas.
Ms. Damaso:
But not to codify. Its a different ball game to codify.
174
Mr. Mercado:
Actually ginamit ko yung term, nag-usap kami ni Didith, sabi ko, its
compile only. Because, its beyond the power of this commission
to make codifications. But yung point kanina ni Datu Sulang is
actually going a step further. Kunwari like Muslims, bakit nare-
recognize na yong three marriages. Because there is four marriages
and they have specific law for that. If we will not compile it,
mahihirapan tayong ma-attain yong level na yon na sana mas
maganda kung yong all practices, for example on marriage sa
ibat ibang tribes ma-recognize rin ng law. Pero if we will not
document the practices, hindi natin maa-attain yong level na yon.
Kaya mas maganda kung mayroon tayong documentation that when
legislators if and when they decide to make it a law, mayroon silang
existing na gagamitin. xxx
........
Ms. Chavez:
Couldnt NCIP hire or form a consultative body from which each
tribe will be represented by a co-tribal consultant aside from
the documentation of customary laws? Pwede ba yon ganoon?
Kasi kahit may documentation... (emphasis supplied)
The presiding officer:
Baka pwede isama sa IRR, implementing rules and regulations yong mga
tribal tribal consultancy.
Ms. Chavez:
Sa IRR.
The Presiding officer:
Pwede naman siguro yon gawin. Anyway, specifics na yon. General lang
yong functions na ilagay natin.
xxxx
175
While the IPRA did create the OPPR, and directed the
NCIP to form a consultative body, their functions had
nothing to do with the NCIPs exercise of quasi-judicial
powers.
The OPPRs objective is to document customary laws for
monitoring, evaluation, and policy purposes to assist
Congress in formulating appropriate legislations benefiting
ICCs/IPs.30 On the other hand, the consultative bodys role
is to advise the NCIP on matters relating to the problems,
aspirations, and interests of the ICCs/IPs.31
The variance between the deliberations and the law
suggests that Congress passed the IPRA without
considering the inevitable conflict of rights under national
and customary laws. In my opinion, this casts doubt on
whether Congress did give the NCIP the mandate to settle
disputes between non-ICCs/IPs and ICCs/IPs.
It is true that the IPRA echoed our Constitution32 in
[recognizing] the applicability of customary laws
governing property rights or relations in determining the
ownership and extent of ancestral domain.33 However, I do
not subscribe to the idea that customary laws should bind
non-ICCs/IPs simply because Congress ordered the NCIP
to compile them.
In Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural
Resources,34 former Associate Justice Jose C. Vitug
opined35 that customary laws should not apply to non-
ICCs/IPs simply because Congress parroted the
Constitution:
_______________
176
_______________
178
_______________
179
_______________
180
Rep. Zapata:
This was considered. The original, we were willing in the
house. But the exclusive, we objected to the word
exclusive because it would only be the commission that
would exclude the court and the Commission may not be
able to undertake all the review nationwide. And so we
remove the word exclusive so that they will have
original jurisdiction but with the removal of the
word exclusive that would mean that they may
bring the case to the ordinary courts of justice.
Sen. Flavier:
Without passing through the commission?
Rep. Zapata:
Yes. Anyway, if they go to the regular courts, they will
have to litigate in court, because if its (sic) exclusive, that
would be good.
Sen. Flavier:
But what he is saying is that
Rep. Zapata:
But they may not have the facility.
Rep._______:
Senado na lang.
Rep. Zapata:
Oo, iyong original na lang.
Sen. Flavier:
In other words, its not only the Commission that
can originate it, pwedeng mag-originate sa courts.
Rep. Zapata:
Or else, we just remove exclusive original so that they
will say, the National will have jurisdiction over claims. So
we remove both exclusive and original.
Sen. Flavier:
So what version are you batting for, Mr. Chairman?
181
The Bicameral Committees removal of the words
exclusive and original meant that the NCIP shares
concurrent jurisdiction with the regular courts. Thus, I
agree with the revised ponencia that it would be ultra vires
for NCIP to promulgate rules and regulations stating that
it has exclusive jurisdiction.
The NCIPs jurisdiction, however, while not
exclusive,
is primary.
Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, courts must
refrain from determining a controversy involving a
question which is within the jurisdiction of an
administrative tribunal, where the question demands the
exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the
special knowledge, experience and services of the
administrative tribunal to determine technical and
intricate matters of fact.43
_______________
182
_______________
44 Pua v. Citibank, G.R. No. 180064, September 16, 2013, 705 SCRA
684.
45 RULE III. The NCIP shall exercise jurisdiction over all claims
and disputes involving rights of the ICCs/IPs and all cases pertaining to
the implementation, enforcement, and interpretation of R.A. 8371,
including but not limited to the following:
A. Original and Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Regional Hearing
Office (emphasis supplied)
1. Cases involving disputes and controversies over ancestral
lands/domains of ICCs/IPs, except those which involve oppositions to
pending applications for CALT and CADT;
2. Enforcement of compromise agreements or decisions rendered by
ICCs/IPs;
3. Actions for redemption/reconveyance under Section 8(b) of R.A. 8371;
4. Interpretation, implementation, or enforcement of Memorandum of
Agreements (MOA) entered into by parties as a result of the Free Prior
and Informed Consent (FPIC) process;
5. Cases involving Projects, Programs, Activities within ancestral
lands/domains being implemented without the required FPIC of the
affected/host IPs/ICCs;
183
_______________
184
CONCURRING OPINION
PEREZ, J.:
While I agree with the holding in this case that
jurisdiction over the original and amended complaint,
accion reivindicatoria and injunction, before the court a
quo, correctly lies with the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs):
(1) an accion reivindicatoria, a civil action involving
interest in real property with an assessed value of
P683,760.00; and (2) an injunction, a civil action incapable
of pecuniary estimation, I offer my view on the complex
nature of the jurisdiction of the National Commission of
Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) conferred in the Indigenous
Peoples Rights Act (IPRA), Republic Act No. 8371.
Even if in this case the complaint was amended from an
accion reivindicatoria to one for injunction, both containing
allegations clearly falling within the RTCs jurisdiction,
petitioners insist and maintain that as indigenous persons,
except for two (2) petitioners, with the subject property
claimed as their ancestral land, the NCIP has exclusive
and original jurisdiction over the case. For the petitioners,
with a submission that the ponencia already dismissed, the
mere fact that this case involves members of Indigenous
Cultural Communities/Indigenous Persons (ICCs/IPs) and
their ancestral land, automatically endows the NCIP,
under Section 66 of the IPRA, with jurisdiction over
petitioners complaint. Even the NCIP is of the view of its
original and exclusive jurisdiction over both the original
and amended complaints. Hence, the two (2) Motions to
Refer the Case to the Regional Hearing Office-National
Commission on Indigenous Peoples (RHO-NCIP) filed by
the NCIP Hearing Officer before the court a quo.
I concur with the ponencia on the basis of the principle
that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is
conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the
complaint, and that the averments in the complaint and
the character of the
185
_______________
186
_______________
4 Section 39 IPRA.
5 Section 38 IPRA.
187
_______________
6 Cristobal v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125339, June 22, 1998, 291
SCRA 122, 132.
7 See Crusaders Broadcasting System, Inc. v. NTC, 388 Phil. 624, 636;
332 SCRA 819, 829 (2000).
8 Abejo v. De la Cruz, 233 Phil. 668, 684-685; 149 SCRA 654, 669
(1987).
188
_______________
9 Fabia v. Court of Appeals, 437 Phil. 389, 403; 388 SCRA 574, 585
(2002).
10 Honasan II v. The Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of the
Department of Justice, G.R. No. 159747, April 13, 2004, 427 SCRA 46, 67.
11 Fabia v. Court of Appeals, supra.
12 Honasan II v. The Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of the
Department of Justice, supra.
13 Republic Act No. 6770, known as The Ombudsman Act of 1989
and the 1987 Administrative Code.
189
191
193
VOL. 773, OCTOBER 20, 2015 193
Unduran vs. Aberasturi
194
_______________
199
_______________
200
_______________
201
_______________
22 G.R. No. 80774, 244 Phil. 741, 747; 161 SCRA 719, 725 (1988).
202
CONCURRING OPINION
LEONEN, J.:
I concur with the ponencia in holding that respondents
action, alleged to be involving a claim over the ancestral
domain of an indigenous cultural community/indigenous
people (ICC/IP), does not fall within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the National Commission on Indigenous
Peoples (NCIP).
A careful reading of Section 661 of Republic Act No.
8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights
Act of 1997, with particular emphasis on its proviso will
reveal that the jurisdiction of the NCIP is limited to
disputes where both parties are members of ICC/IPs and
come from the same ethnolinguistic group.
Thus, the assailed Decision dated August 17, 2006 and
Resolution dated July 4, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in
C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 00204-MIN must be affirmed.
The present Petition for Review on Certiorari2 is an
offshoot of a Petition for Accion Reivindicatoria with prayer
for issuance of a temporary restraining order or
preliminary prohibitory injunction with damages3 (Original
Complaint) filed by respondents against petitioners before
the Regional Trial Court of Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon on
March 3, 2004,
_______________
205
_______________
4 Id.
5 Id.
6 Id., at p. 79, Original Certificate of Title.
7 Id., at pp. 30-32, Petition for Review on Certiorari.
8 Id., at p. 60, Court of Appeals Decision dated August 17, 2006.
206
_______________
9 Id.
10 Id., at p. 61.
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id., at pp. 61-62.
15 Id., at pp. 57-68.
207
_______________
Jurisdiction is the power and authority of [a] tribunal
to hear, try and decide a case.17 Moreover, [j]urisdiction
over a subject matter is conferred by law.18 It could not be
conferred by any other source, such as the parties action or
conduct and any judgment, order or resolution issued
without it is void.19
I
The NCIP does not have jurisdiction over cases where
one of the parties does not belong to an indigenous cultural
community.
Section 38 of the Act created the NCIP to carry out the
policies set forth in the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act. Per
Section 38, the NCIP shall be the primary government
agency responsible for the formulation and implementation
of policies, plans and programs to promote and protect the
rights and well-being of the ICCs/IPs and the recognition of
their ancestral domains as well as their rights thereto.
Section 39 provides for the NCIPs mandate to protect and
promote the interest and well-being of the ICCs/IPs with
due regard to their beliefs, customs, traditions and
institutions.
_______________
not been resolved, which certification shall be a condition precedent to the
filing of a petition with the NCIP.
17 Veneracion v. Mancilla, 528 Phil. 309, 325; 495 SCRA 712, 726
(2006) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., First Division].
18 Machado v. Gatdula, 626 Phil. 457, 468; 612 SCRA 546, 559 (2010)
[Per J. Brion, Second Division], citing Vargas v. Caminas, 577 Phil. 185;
554 SCRA 305 (2008) [Per J. Carpio, First Division]; Metromedia Times
Corporation v. Pastorin, 503 Phil. 288; 465 SCRA 320 (2005) [Per J. Tinga,
Second Division]; and Dy v. National Labor Relations Commission, 229
Phil. 234, 242; 145 SCRA 211, 221 (1986) [Per J. Narvasa, First Division].
19 Magno v. People, 662 Phil. 726, 735; 647 SCRA 362, 371 (2011) [Per
J. Brion, Third Division]; citing Machado v. Gatdula, id.
209
_______________
210
_______________
211
....
f) Customary Laws refer to a body of written
and/or unwritten rules, usages, customs and practices
traditionally and continually recognized, accepted and
observed by respective ICCs/IPs[.] (Emphasis supplied)
It is evident that only those belonging to ICCs/IPs have
or adhere to customary laws. Since Section 66 refers to
parties having customary laws, it follows that the NCIPs
jurisdiction, as defined in Section 66 of the Indigenous
Peoples Rights Act, is limited to parties who belong to
ICCs/IPs. It excludes those who do not.
To hold otherwise is to summarily compel those who do
not belong to ICCs/IPs to adhere and subject themselves to
customary laws despite their not having traditionally and
continually recognized, accepted[,] and observed25 these
laws. This runs afoul of fair play and violates their right to
due process.
Thus, Section 66s qualifiers as specifically worded
indicate that cases that fall under the jurisdiction of the
NCIP must be limited to those where both parties belong to
ICCs/IPs.
IV
The requirement that both parties must exhaust all
remedies provided under their customary laws necessarily
means that both parties must belong to the same ICC/IP.
The word respective denotes belonging or relating to
each one of the people or things that have been
mentioned.26
_______________
214
V
Extending the NCIPs jurisdiction to those who do not
belong to an indigenous cultural community or are not
indigenous peoples finds no support elsewhere in the
Indigenous Peoples Rights Act.
Section 66 is the sole provision of the Indigenous
Peoples Rights Act that spells out the NCIPs jurisdiction
in respect of the exercise of its quasi-judicial power.
This court has defined quasi-judicial power as follows:
Quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory
power on the other hand is the power of the
administrative agency to adjudicate the rights of
persons before it. It is the power to hear and
determine questions of fact to which the legislative
policy is to apply and to decide in accordance with the
standards laid down by the law itself in enforcing and
administering the same law. The administrative body
exercises its quasi-judicial power when it performs in
a judicial manner an act which is essentially of an
executive or administrative nature, where the power
to act in such manner is incidental to or reasonably
necessary for the performance of the executive or
administrative duty entrusted to it. In carrying out
their quasi-judicial functions the administrative
officers or bodies are required to investigate facts or
ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, weigh
evidence, and draw conclusions from them as basis for
their official action and exercise of discretion in a
judicial nature. Since rights of specific persons are
affected it is elementary that in the proper exercise of
quasi-judicial power due process must be observed in
the conduct of the proceedings.27 (Emphasis supplied)
_______________
27 Dole Philippines Inc. v. Esteva, 538 Phil. 817, 860-861; 509 SCRA
332, 369-370 (2006) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, First Division],
216
_______________
217
_______________
218
_______________
219
VI
Reliance on the Indigenous Peoples Rights Acts
Implementing Rules and Regulations and the NCIPs rules
in support of the assertion that the NCIP has jurisdiction is
misplaced. In extending the NCIPs jurisdiction, these rules
contradict statutory provisions.
Rule IX Section 1 of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Acts
Implementing Rules and Regulations reads:
RULE IX JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURES
FOR ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS
Section 1. Primacy of Customary Law.All
conflicts related to ancestral domains and lands,
involving ICCs/IPs, such as but not limited to
conflicting claims and bound-
_______________
222
_______________
37 617 Phil. 358; 602 SCRA 159 (2009) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, En
Banc].
38 Article 7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their
violation or nonobservance shall not be excused by disuse, or custom or
practice to the contrary.
When the courts declared a law to be inconsistent with the
Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern.
Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid
only when they are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution.
225
_______________
226
_______________
227
VIII
Customary norms are as varied as there are tribes
within ethnolinguistic groups. If we are to animate the
spirit of both the Constitution and the Indigenous Peoples
Rights Act, we should not stereotype all cultures as
homogenous or incapable of dynamic interfaces with each
other. Customary law is a descriptive label which should
acknowledge that each tribe lived through its own history
and endogenously emerged their own set of norms
reflecting their values and lifeways. To say that the
customary norms of the Kalinga are the same as those of
the Subanen betrays the same colonial mindset that
marginalized what our colonizers called as Non-Christian
Tribes in the distant past.
Neither should we straightjacket any culture as
incapable of dynamic interfaces or accommodation with
other cultures. Various groups of indigenous communities
are able to work with the entirety of our legal system in
appropriate cases. This case, which involves a party not of
their tribe, is certainly one such case.
ACCORDINGLY, I vote to DENY the Petition for
Review on Certiorari. The assailed Decision dated August
17, 2006 and Resolution dated July 4, 2007 of the Court of
Appeals in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 00204-MIN must be
AFFIRMED.
228