UNDURAN v. ABERASTURI

LOLOY UNDURAN, et. al., petitioners VS. RAMON ABERASTURI, et. al., respondents

G.R. No. 181284

April 18, 2017

FACTS:

         This is a Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s En Banc Decision dated October 20, 2015, which the petition was denied and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision. In the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration, they maintain their contention believing that it is the National Commission of Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) not the regular courts, which has jurisdiction over disputes and controversies involving ancestral domain of the Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICC’s) and Indigenous Peoples (IP’s) regardless of the parties involved.

         In their Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, petitioners stress that:

1. The NCIP and not the regular courts has jurisdiction over the case under the principle that jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case is determined by the allegations in the complaint, and pursuant to jurisprudence allowing exemptions thereto;
2. The jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case rests upon the NCIP as conferred by the IPRA;
3. The IPRA is a social legislation that seeks to protect the IPs not so much from themselves or fellow IPs but more from non-IPs;
4. The IPRA created the NCIP as the agency of government mandated to realize the rights of IPs;
5. In the exercise of its mandate, the NCIP was created as a quasi-judicial body with jurisdiction to resolve claims and disputes involving the rights of IPs;
6. The jurisdiction of the NCIP in resolving claims and disputes involving the rights of IPs is not limited to IPs of the same tribe;
7. Harmonizing the related provisions of the IPRA supports the argument that the NCIP has jurisdiction over cases involving IP rights whether or not the parties are IPs or non-ICCs/IPs;
8. The NCIP as quasi-judicial agency provides IPs mechanisms for access to justice in the fulfillment of the State's obligations to respect, protect and fulfill IP's human rights;
9. The NCIP has the competence and skill that would greatly advance the administration of justice with respect to protection and fulfillment of ICC/IP rights/human rights; and
10. (Recognition and enforcement of customary laws and indigenous justice systems fulfill the State's obligations as duty bearers in the enforcement of human rights.

       

ISSUE:

        Whether or not the Regional Trial Court has the jurisdiction over the disputes and controversies involving the ancestral domain of the ICC and IP regardless of the parties involved not the NCIP.

HELD:

         Yes. It is the court of general jurisdiction has the power or authority to hear and decide cases whose subject matter does not fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial function. In contrast, a court of limited jurisdiction, or a court acting under special powers, has only the jurisdiction expressly delegated.  An administrative agency, acting in its quasi-judicial capacity, is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction which could wield only such powers that are specifically granted to it by the enabling statutes. Limited or special jurisdiction is that which is confined to particular causes or which can be exercised only under limitations and circumstances prescribed by the statute.

         Meanwhile, the NCIP's jurisdiction is limited under customary laws presents two important issues: first, whether it is legally possible to punish non-ICCs/IPs with penalties under customary laws; and second, whether a member of a particular ICC/IP could be punished in accordance with the customary laws of another ICC/IP.

         Therefore, the Court finds no merit in petitioners' contention that jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of a case is not merely based on the allegations of the complaint in certain cases where the actual issues are evidenced by subsequent pleadings. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of the court cannot be made to depend on the defenses raised by the defendant in the answer or a motion to dismiss; otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would depend almost entirely on the defendant. Suffice it also to state that the Court is unanimous in denying the petition for review on certiorari on the ground that the CA correctly ruled that the subject matter of the original and amended complaint based on the allegations therein is within the jurisdiction of the RTC.