You are on page 1of 4

G.R. No.

181284 October 20, 2015

LOLOY 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, Petitioners
vs.
RAMON ABERASTURI, CRISTINA C. LOPEZ, CESAR LOPEZ JR., DIONISIO A.
LOPEZ, MERCEDES L. GASTON, AGNES H. LOPEZ, EUSEBIO S. LOPEZ,
JOSE MARIA S. LOPEZ, ANTON B. ABERASTURI, MA. RAISSA A. VELEZ,
ZOILO ANTONIO A. VELEZ, CRISTINA ABERASTURI, EDUARDO LOPEZ JR.,
ROSARIO S. LOPEZ, JUAN S. LOPEZ, CESAR ANTHONY R. LOPEZ,
VENANCIO L. GASTON, ROSEMARIE S. LOPEZ, JAY A. ASUNCION, NICOLO
ABERASTURI, LISA A. ASUNCION, INEZ A. VERAY, HERNAN A.
ASUNCION, ASUNCION LOPEZ, THOMAS A. VELEZ, LUIS ENRIQUE VELEZ,
ANTONIO H. LOPEZ, CHARLES H. LOPEZ, ANA L. ZAYCO, PILAR L.
QUIROS, CRISTINA L. PICAZO, RENATO SANTOS, GERALDINE AGUIRRE,
MARIA CARMENCITA T. LOPEZ, and as represented by attorney-in-fact RAMON
ABERASTURI, Respondents

Doctrine: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 plaintiffs cause of action. The nature of an action, as
well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the
allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not
the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. The
averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be
consulted. Once vested by the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains
vested irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or
some of the claims asserted therein.

Facts:

Petitioners are members of the Miarayon, Lapok, Lirongan, Talaandig Tribal


Association (MILALITTRA), or Talaandig tribe, who claimed to have been living
since birth on the land located at Barangay Miarayon, Talakag, Bukidnon, Mindanao,
which they inherited from their forefathers.

Respondents, represented by attorney-in-fact Ramon Aberasturi, claimed to be the


lawful owners and possessor of an unregistered parcel of agricultural land.
On March 3, 2004, respondents filed a Petition for Accion Reivindicatoria, with
Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Prohibitory
Injunction with Damages before the Regional Trial Court of Manolo Fortich,
Bukidnon (RTC).

On March 23, 2004, the rest of the petitioners filed their Motion to Dismiss, alleging
that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the case. As awardees of a Certificate of
Ancestral Domain Title (CADT), petitioners argued that NCIP has exclusive and
original jurisdiction over the case, as the subject matter concerns a dispute and
controversy over an ancestral land/domain of Indigenous Cultural Communities
(ICCs)/Indigenous Peoples (IPs). The petitioners asserted that the mere fact that the
case involves members of ICCs/IPs and their ancestral land, automatically endows the
NCIP, under Section 66 of the IPRA, with jurisdiction.

On July 1, 2004, the NCIP through Atty. Melanie Pimentel, filed a Motion to Refer
the Case to the Regional Hearing Office-National Commission on Indigenous Peoples
(RHO-NCIP), alleging that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the subject matter. On
July 05, 2004, the respondents filed a motion to amend and supplement the original
complaint to one for Injunction, Damages, and other Relief, alleging that by means of
fraud, stealth, and surreptitious means, petitioners entered the said land, without
permission and against the consent of the landowners, caused damages therein, and
harassed respondents by indiscriminately firing upon their farm workers.On August
10, 2004, the RTC issued an Order granting the Motion to Amend and Supplement
Complaint, and declared petitioners' Motion to Refer the Case to the RHO-NCIP and
Motion to Dismiss moot and academic as a consequence of the grant of the said
motion to amend and supplement complaint. On August 17, 2004, petitioners filed a
Manifestation praying for an ocular inspection of the disputed land to determine the
last, actual, peaceable, uncontested status of the area. On August 25, 2004, petitioners
filed another Motion to Refer the Case to the RHO-NCIP and Motion to Dismiss the
Amended Complaint. On September 14, 2004, respondents filed their Opposition and
Motion for Judgment by Default. On February 14, 2005, the RTC issued an order
denying the motion to refer the case to the RHO-NCIP as well as the manifestation for
an ocular inspection. On April 12, 2005, petitioners filed before the Court of Appeals
a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and
Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order. The CA affirmed the decision, stating
that the allegations in the original complaint for accion reivindicatoria and the
amended complaint for injunction show that the subject matter of both complaints was
within the RTC’s jurisdiction.

Issue:

Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the case.

Held:

In resolving the case, the Supreme Court laid down the basic premise that the nature
of the action is determined by the allegations in the complaint, regardless of whether
or not the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs prayed therefor. It ruled that the RTC had
jurisdiction over the case based on Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (B.P. Blg. 129), which
grants it exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions in which the subject of the
litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation and in all civil actions which involve
the title to, possession of, real property or any interest therein where the assessed
value of the property involved exceeds Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) or for
civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00).

The NCIP continues to have jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving rights
of ICCs/IPs “only when they arise between or among parties belonging to the same
ICC/IP.” This conclusion, according to the Court, can be gathered from the proviso in
Section 66, which states that the parties must have exhausted all remedies available
under the customary laws of the ICCs/IPs before the petition can be filed with the
NCIP. The Court pointed to Section 3 (f) of the IPRA, which defines customary laws
as a “body of written and/or unwritten rules, usages, customs, and practices
traditionally and continually recognized, accepted, and observed by respective
ICCs/IPs.” Therefore, since parties that belong to different ICCs do not share, and
furthermore are not bound to comply with, the same set of customary laws, “it would
be violative of the principles of fair play and due process” to subject them to the
jurisdiction of the NCIP.

Corollarily, when the claims and disputes involve parties who do not belong to the
same ICC/IP, the regular courts, instead of the NCIP, will have jurisdiction based on
B.P. Blg. 129. Therefore, there are two permutations of cases falling under the
jurisdiction of the RTC: first, cases where the parties are both members of ICCs/IPs
but belong to different ICCs/IPs and second, cases where one of the parties is a
non-ICC/IP.