View full case

HEIRS OF TUNGED NAMELY: ROSITA YARIS-LIWAN v. STA. LUCIA REALTY

FACTS:

The petitioners, heirs of Tunged and recognized Indigenous People (IP), filed an environmental case against respondents Sta. Lucia Realty and Development, Inc. and Baguio Properties, Inc. The petitioners claimed that they are the original settlers in Baguio City and Benguet Province and that the subject property is an ancestral land that they have been occupying. They argued that the respondents' acts of demolishing and bulldozing the subject land violated their rights under the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) and other environmental laws. They also claimed that their applications for the issuance of Certificate of Ancestral Land Titles (CALTs) are pending before the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP).

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction, stating that the recognition of the petitioners' rights as IPs should be threshed out in a proceeding governed by the IPRA. The RTC also ruled that petitioners do not have the legal personality to initiate the case as their right of ownership over the subject property has yet to be established. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.

The issue in this case is whether the RTC's dismissal of the case was proper.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the case;

  2. Whether the NCIP has jurisdiction over the case.

  3. Whether the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) has jurisdiction over claims and disputes involving rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) when the parties belong to different ICCs/IPs or when one party is a non-ICC/IP.

  4. Whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) has jurisdiction over a case involving alleged violations of environmental rights under the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act and Presidential Decree 1586.

  5. Whether or not the requisites for the filing of a petition for mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court were complied with.

  6. Whether or not the trial court erred in dismissing the petition for mandamus.

RULING:

  1. The RTC has jurisdiction over the case. The court held that the jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is determined by the allegations in the complaint, regardless of whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover on all or some of the claims asserted. In this case, the allegations in the complaint established the RTC's jurisdiction as a special environmental court.

  2. The NCIP does not have jurisdiction over the case. The court ruled that the NCIP's jurisdiction, as provided under the IPRA, is limited to claims and disputes involving rights of indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs) when they arise between or among parties belonging to the same ICC/IP. In this case, the claims and disputes do not involve parties belonging to the same ICC/IP.

  3. The NCIP does not have jurisdiction over claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs when the parties belong to different ICCs/IPs or when one party is a non-ICC/IP. The case falls under the jurisdiction of the proper Courts of Justice instead of the NCIP.

  4. The RTC has jurisdiction over a case involving alleged violations of environmental rights under the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act and Presidential Decree 1586, as long as the allegations in the complaint establish a cause of action within the jurisdiction of the RTC, including cases involving violations of environmental rights.

  5. The requisites for the filing of a petition for mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court were complied with. The Court found that the petitioner had a clear legal right to the performance of the duty sought to be enforced, the respondent had a corresponding duty to perform the act sought to be compelled, and there was no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available in the ordinary course of law.

  6. The trial court erred in dismissing the petition for mandamus. The Court ruled that the petitioner had sufficiently alleged the existence of a clear and specific ministerial duty on the part of the respondent to act on the applications for provisional permits filed by the petitioner. The Court also found that the petitioner had adequately established the respondent's unjustified delay in acting on the applications, resulting in the denial of the petitioner's right to a speedy disposition of its applications.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is determined by the allegations in the complaint.

  • The NCIP has jurisdiction over claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs only when they arise between or among parties belonging to the same ICC/IP.

  • The jurisdiction of the NCIP over claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs is limited to cases where both parties belong to the same ICC/IP.

  • The jurisdiction of the court is determined by the nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint and the relief sought.

  • Once jurisdiction is vested by the allegations in the complaint, it remains vested regardless of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted.

  • A plaintiff has legal standing to file a complaint if they have sufficient interest in the case and have been affected or personally aggrieved by the violation of their rights.

  • If a case is not within the jurisdiction of the RTC, sitting as an environmental court, it should be referred to the executive judge for re-raffle to the regular court.

  • Mandamus is a writ commanding an officer to perform an act which the law requires.

  • The requisites for the filing of a petition for mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court are: (a) the petitioner has a clear legal right to the performance of the duty sought to be enforced; (b) the respondent has a corresponding duty to perform the act sought to be compelled; and (c) there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available in the ordinary course of law.