Unduran v. Aberasturi
G.R. No. 181284October 20, 2015
Study material, not legal advice. Written and checked by the PhilippineLaws team to the best of our knowledge; not reviewed by a lawyer. A digest is a summary — the full decision is the authority, so read it before you cite it.
Cited for
NCIP jurisdiction under IPRA Sec. 66 covers only disputes between members of the same ICC/IP; the regular courts otherwise have jurisdiction, subject to exceptions under Secs. 52, 54 and 62
Why it matters
Held that under IPRA Sec. 66 the NCIP has jurisdiction over claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs only when they arise between parties belonging to the same ICC/IP. Where the parties belong to different ICCs/IPs, or one party is not an IP, the proper courts have jurisdiction, except in cases under Secs. 52 and 62 (delineation conflicts) and Sec. 54 (fraudulent claims). The Court also struck down NCIP rules that expanded its jurisdiction beyond the statute.
Digest
Petitioners, mostly members of the Talaandig tribe, claimed land in Barangay Miarayon, Talakag, Bukidnon inherited from their forefathers and covered by CADT No. R-10-TAL-0703-0010, which was issued to the tribe in 2003. Respondents, represented by attorney-in-fact Ramon Aberasturi, claimed ownership and possession of an unregistered 105.7361-hectare lot that appeared to lie within that ancestral domain. They traced their title to a 1957 sale by a Talaandig chieftain. On March 3, 2004, they filed an accion reivindicatoria with a prayer for injunction in the Manolo Fortich RTC, alleging that petitioners had entered the land by stealth and harassed their workers with gunfire. Petitioners moved to dismiss, and the NCIP moved to refer the case to its Regional Hearing Office, both arguing that the NCIP had jurisdiction over ancestral domain disputes. Respondents amended the complaint to one for injunction and damages. On February 14, 2005, the RTC denied the referral, declared most petitioners in default and granted a preliminary injunction. On August 17, 2006, the CA affirmed except for lifting the default order, and it denied reconsideration on July 4, 2007. Petitioners filed a Rule 45 petition.
- 1Whether the RTC or the NCIP has jurisdiction over respondents' complaint involving land within the Talaandig ancestral domain.
- 2Whether NCIP jurisdiction under Section 66 of the IPRA extends to disputes where the parties do not belong to the same ICC/IP.
The Court denied the petition. It first held that petitioners had standing as real parties in interest, since they were shown to be beneficiaries of the CADT. Jurisdiction is conferred by law and determined by the allegations of the complaint. The original complaint for accion reivindicatoria involved real property assessed at P683,760.00, and the amended complaint for injunction is incapable of pecuniary estimation. Both fall within the RTC's jurisdiction under Section 19 of B.P. 129, and neither alleged that the parties are ICC/IP members or that the dispute concerns ancestral domain. That the case involves IPs and ancestral land does not by itself place it with the NCIP. Section 66 of the IPRA requires, before a dispute may be brought to the NCIP, exhaustion of remedies under customary law and a certification from the Council of Elders/Leaders. Those conditions can be met only when both parties belong to the same ICC/IP. Subjecting outsiders to another community's customary law would violate fair play and due process. The NCIP thus has jurisdiction only over disputes between members of the same ICC/IP. Otherwise the proper courts decide, except in cases under Sections 52 and 62 (conflicting claims in delineating ancestral domains) and Section 54 (fraudulent claims). Because an administrative rule must conform to its enabling law, the Court declared void Rule IX, Section 1 of the IPRA-IRR, Rule III, Section 5 and Rule IV, Sections 13 and 14 of the NCIP Rules insofar as they expand NCIP jurisdiction beyond Section 66. The CA Decision and Resolution were affirmed.
Checked against the full decision by the PhilippineLaws team on September 21, 2026. Not reviewed by a lawyer.
Separate opinions
Agreed that the RTC has jurisdiction on the complaint's allegations. He read Sec. 66 as giving the NCIP jurisdiction over disputes where both parties are ICCs/IPs, even of different communities, while cases with a non-IP party go to the regular courts. He would void only the second paragraph of Rule IX, Sec. 1 of the IRR, not the NCIP Rules.
Concurred on the basis that jurisdiction follows the complaint's allegations and the Sec. 66 proviso; urged that NCIP jurisdiction be definitively drawn in light of City of Baguio v. Masweng, and discussed primary jurisdiction.
The Sec. 66 proviso limits NCIP jurisdiction to disputes where both parties are ICC/IP members from the same ethnolinguistic group.
Concurred that the RTC has jurisdiction because the RTC order involved no grave abuse, jurisdiction is fixed by law and the complaint, and Sec. 66 confines the NCIP to disputes between members of the same ICC/IP. He stressed that the NCIP's jurisdiction is primary, not exclusive.