10. Elizabeth Ramos vs. NCIP, G.R. No. 192112, 19 Aug.

2020

Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of a TRO and/or WPI

FACTS:

Bae Tenorio filed with the NCIP and application for the issuance of a Certificate of Ancestral
Land Title (CALT) over the subject land as ancestral land. The NCIP issued CALT in favor of the
Egalan-Gubayan clan which was reduced later on. An amended CALT was later issued to exclude
existing property rights from the coverage of CALT pursuant to Section 56 of the R.A. No. 8371.

Previous to this, a part of the CALT was the subject of a lease in favor of Hughes. After his
death, his heirs filed individual sales application of the leased land, which was opposed before the
Office of President by a group of 133 persons.In its Amended Decision, awarded 399 hectares to the
133 oppositors while the remaining 317 hectares land to the Hughes heirs. Hughes heirs instituted
various actions in different courts to challenge the same or delay its enforcement.

The petitioners are among the 133 beneficiaries or the legitimate heirs of the 133
beneficiaries.On the other hand, the 317 hectares awarded to Hughes heirs became the subject of
another dispute (Estita) before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (Digos, Davao del
Sur). The case eventually reached the Court (Lapanday Agricultutral and Development Corp. vs.
Estita). In the decision, the Court denied Lapanday’s petition for review on certiorari and upheld the
jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform over the 317 hectares of land owned by the Hughes
heirs.

The Court affirmed the CA which in turn affirmed the DARAB.

The DARAB Secretariat issued a Writ of Execution in the DARAB case. The Sheriff issued a
Notice to Vacate Premises.

The private respondents, members of the Egalan-Gubayan clan filed a case for Injunction with
Very Urgent Prayer for the Issuance of TRO and/or WPI before the NCIP-RHO in order to enjoin
the implementation of the Writ of Execution and Notice to vacate issued by the DARAB.

RHO: issued a TRO but dismissed on the ground of forum shopping and on the ground that the
NCIP had relinquished its jurisdiction over the controversy when it filed before the CA the petition for
prohibition, mandamus and injunction against DAR.

Appeal to NCIP - Granted the TRO and WPI and reversed the decision of RHO; NCIP has
jurisdiction and has the power to issue an injunction under Section 69(d) of the IPRA.

Direct recourse before the SC- Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition(Patent Nullity and Lack of
Jurisdiction, Question of Law)

ISSUE: WON NCIP has jurisdiction over the case.

RULING:

NO. The Court partly grants the petition and sets aside the assailed NCIP decision.

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
plaintiff’s cause of action.

In Unduran v. Aberasturi, it was held that the jurisdiction of the NCIP under Section 66 of the
IPRA over claims and disputes involving rights of indigenous cultural communities (ICCs) and
indigenous people (IPs) arise only when such claims and disputes are between or among parties who
belong to the same ICC/IP. When such claims and disputes arise between or among parties who do not
belong to the same ICC/IP, the case shall fall under the jurisdiction of the proper Court of Justice,
instead of the NCIP.

In the present case, it is clear that the NCIP has no jurisdiction over the complaint filed by
private respondents considering that the parties do not belong to the same ICC/IP. Accordingly, yhe
complaint for Injunction by private respondents is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
 R. A. No. 8371

Jurisdiction and Procedures for Enforcement of Rights

SECTION 65.         Primacy of Customary Laws and Practices. — When disputes involve ICCs/IPs,
customary laws and practices shall be used to resolve the dispute.

SECTION 66.         Jurisdiction of the NCIP. — The NCIP, through its regional offices, shall have
jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs: Provided, however, 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.

SECTION 67.         Appeals to the Court of Appeals. — Decisions of the NCIP shall be appealable to
the Court of Appeals by way of a petition for review.

SECTION 68.         Execution of Decisions, Awards, Orders. — Upon expiration of the period herein
provided and no appeal is perfected by any of the contending parties, the Hearing Officer of the NCIP,
on its own initiative or upon motion by the prevailing party, shall issue a writ of execution requiring the
sheriff or the proper officer to execute final decisions, orders or awards of the Regional Hearing Officer
of the NCIP.

SECTION 69.         Quasi-Judicial Powers of the NCIP. — The NCIP shall have the power and
authority:

a)              To promulgate rules and regulations governing the hearing and disposition of cases filed
before it as well as those pertaining to its internal functions and such rules and regulations as may be
necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act;

b)              To administer oaths, summon the parties to a controversy, issue subpoenas requiring the
attendance and testimony of witnesses or the production of such books, papers, contracts, records,
agreements and other document of similar nature as may be material to a just determination of the
matter under investigation or hearing conducted in pursuance of this Act;

c)              To hold any person in contempt, directly or indirectly, and impose appropriate penalties
therefor; and

d)              To enjoin any or all acts involving or arising from any case pending before it which, if not
restrained forthwith, may cause grave or irreparable damage to any of the parties to the case or
seriously affect social or economic activity.

SECTION 70.         No Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction. — No inferior court of the

Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction against
the NCIP or any of its duly authorized or designated offices in any case, dispute or controversy arising
from, necessary to, or interpretation of this Act and other pertinent laws relating to ICCs/IPs and
ancestral domains.