Case Digest (G.R. No. 193494)
Facts:
In Luloy Unduran et al. v. Aberasturi et al. (G.R. No. 181284, April 18, 2017), petitioners, led by Barangay Captain Romeo Pacana and various residents of Barangay Calawag, Catanduanes, sought to dismiss an accion reivindicatoria and injunction action brought by respondents, represented by Ramon Aberasturi, Cristina C. Lopez and numerous members of the Lopez, Velez, Asuncion, and related families. The respondents claimed ownership and possession of parcels of land allegedly within their ancestral domain, while petitioners contended that the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) had exclusive jurisdiction under Republic Act No. 8371 (the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997, IPRA) over all ancestral domain disputes. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied petitioners’ motion to dismiss, confirming its jurisdiction. On August 17, 2006, the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 00204-MIN affirmed the RTC decision, and its July 4, 2007 resolution denied reconsideration.Case Digest (G.R. No. 193494)
Facts:
- Parties and Subject Matter
- Petitioners: Loyol 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—residents and officials asserting a real right over a parcel of land claimed as ancestral domain.
- Respondents: Ramon Aberasturi (Attorney-in-Fact), Cristina C. Lopez, Cesar Lopez Jr., and over fifty co-claimants—adverse claimants to the same parcel, asserting ownership by title.
- Procedural History
- Petitioners filed an original complaint for accion reivindicatoria and an amended complaint for injunction in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), invoking ownership of land appearing within an ICC/IP ancestral domain.
- The Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. SP No. 00204-MIN, Decision dated August 17, 2006, and Resolution dated July 4, 2007, affirmed RTC jurisdiction and denied petitioners’ claims.
- Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via petition for review on certiorari, which the en banc Court, in a Decision dated October 20, 2015, denied—affirming the CA.
- Petitioners then filed a Motion for Reconsideration and a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, arguing principally that:
- Under Section 66 of RA 8371 (IPRA), the NCIP, not the regular courts, has jurisdiction over all ancestral-domain disputes, regardless of party affiliation;
- Jurisdiction should be determined by the true nature of the controversy (defenses and subsequent pleadings), not solely by complaint allegations;
- Analogous jurisprudence permits consideration of defenses to fix jurisdiction (e.g., tenancy disputes, labor cases);
- Other IPRA provisions (Secs. 46(g), 62, 69, 70, 72) and the purpose of IPRA justify a broad, exclusive NCIP jurisdiction, including over non-ICC/IP parties.
Issues:
- Jurisdiction Over Ancestral Domain Disputes
- Does Section 66 of the IPRA confer exclusive and original jurisdiction upon the NCIP for all claims and disputes involving ICC/IP ancestral domain, regardless of whether the opposing parties belong to the same ICC/IP group or include non-IPs?
- Can jurisdiction over the subject matter be relaxed in exceptional cases based on defenses or subsequent pleadings indicating an “ancestral domain” controversy?
- Scope and Limits of NCIP Jurisdiction Under IPRA
- Whether the proviso in Section 66 (requiring exhaustion of customary-law remedies and certification by the Council of Elders/Leaders) confines NCIP jurisdiction only to intra-ICC/IP group disputes.
- Whether other IPRA sections (46(g), 52, 53, 54, 62, 69, 70, 72) grant broader or concurrent jurisdiction to NCIP over:
- Disputes between different ICC/IP groups, and
- Disputes involving non-ICC/IP parties.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)