View full case

SUSAN GALANG v. VERONICA WALLIS

FACTS:

Petitioners Susan Galang and Bernadeth Albino, representing several individuals, filed a complaint for Accion Reivindicatoria, Declaration of Nullity of PSU No. 203172, Annulment of Tax Declaration, Injunction with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Damages. They claimed to be the lawful owners of parcels of land located in Ampucao, Itogon, Benguet. They traced the origin of their title to Wasiwas Bermor, who registered the land in his name in 1961. Petitioner Brenda Fagyan acquired the land from Bermor in 1973 and divided and transferred portions to the rest of the petitioners. They alleged that respondents have been intruding into their land in bad faith without any color of title. They argued that the documents being used by respondents to justify their intrusion were fraudulently acquired and are nullities. Petitioners prayed for various reliefs from the court.

Respondents, in their Answer and Motion to Dismiss, claimed that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the case. They argued that the land subject of the controversy is an ancestral land and the dispute involves members of indigenous peoples' groups. They contended that the matter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP). They presented a resolution granting recognition of ancestral land to the Heirs of Toato Bugnay, represented by respondent Veronica Wallis. Respondents also argued that petitioners have no cause of action against them, as they have no right over the subject land.

The RTC, in its Order dated August 27, 2015, dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. It relied on Section 66 of the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA), which gives the NCIP jurisdiction over claims and disputes involving the rights of indigenous cultural communities (ICC)/indigenous peoples (IP), as well as NCIP Administrative Circular No. 1-03, which reiterates the exclusive jurisdiction of the NCIP over claims and disputes involving ancestral lands. The RTC held that even if it had jurisdiction, the case should still be heard by the NCIP under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.

In another Order dated February 8, 2016, the RTC denied the Motion for Reconsideration of the petitioners, affirming its previous ruling. Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that the RTC wrongly ruled that it has no jurisdiction over the case because it falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the NCIP. They asserted that the parties do not belong to the same ICC/IP and that their complaint is a civil action involving an interest in real property, which is within the jurisdiction of the RTC. They further argued that an action for ancestral land registration does not bar their accion reivindicatoria claim.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the jurisdiction of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) is exclusive over disputes involving rights of the indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples (ICC/IP).

  2. Whether an accion reivindicatoria falls within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) or the NCIP.

  3. Whether or not the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) has concurrent jurisdiction with the regular courts over claims and disputes involving rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICC/IP) between parties belonging to the same ICC/IP group.

  4. Whether or not the present controversy falls within the primary jurisdiction of the NCIP.

RULING:

  1. The jurisdiction of the NCIP is exclusive over disputes involving rights of ICC/IP only when they arise between or among parties belonging to the same ICC/IP group. If the parties do not belong to the same ICC/IP group, the case falls under the jurisdiction of the regular courts, instead of the NCIP. This is because the primary purpose of the qualifying provision in Section 66 of the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act (IPRA) is to limit or restrict the general language or operation of the statute. The NCIP's quasi-judicial jurisdiction is limited to cases where the opposing parties belong to the same ICC/IP group.

  2. An accion reivindicatoria, a civil action involving an interest in real property, falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC, not the NCIP. The RTC has the power to hear, try, and decide cases whose subject matter does not fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of any other court, tribunal, or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. The complaint of the petitioners was well within the jurisdiction of the RTC.

  3. The NCIP's jurisdiction under Section 66 of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) is limited and cannot be deemed concurrent with the regular courts. Its primary jurisdiction is bestowed under other provisions of the IPRA, specifically Sections 52(h), 53, 62, and 54. Thus, the NCIP only has primary jurisdiction when claims involve adverse claims and border disputes arising from the delineation of ancestral domains/lands, cancellation of fraudulently issued Certificates of Ancestral Domain Title, and disputes and violations of ICC/IP rights between members of the same ICC/IP group.

  4. The present controversy does not involve the matters cognizable by the primary jurisdiction of the NCIP. Therefore, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) has jurisdiction over the case.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The jurisdiction of the NCIP over disputes involving ICC/IP rights is exclusive only when the parties belong to the same ICC/IP group.

  • An accion reivindicatoria falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC.

  • Limited or special jurisdiction of a court or administrative agency is confined to particular causes or can only be exercised under limitations and circumstances prescribed by the law.

  • The NCIP's jurisdiction under Section 66 of the IPRA is limited and not concurrent with the regular courts.

  • The NCIP's primary jurisdiction is under Sections 52(h), 53, 62, and 54 of the IPRA.

  • The RTC has jurisdiction over claims and disputes involving rights of ICC/IPs when the parties do not belong to the same ICC/IP group.

  • The pronouncement of the Court in The City Government of Baguio City v. Masweng regarding the NCIP's jurisdiction over disputes or controversies over ancestral lands/domains of ICCs/IPs is not binding and can be considered as an obiter dictum.