Heirs of Tunged v. Sta Lucia Realty Development Corp | G.R. No. 231737 | March 6, 2018 | Tijam, J.

Petitioners: Heirs of Tunged: Rosita Yaris-Liwan, Virgie Atin-An, Beltran Saingan, Mabel Daling, Monica Domingo, Eliza
Pinono
Respondents: Sta Lucia Realty and Devt corp & Baguio Properties

SUMMARY: The Heirs of Tunged are members of the Ibaloi Tribe who seek to protect their vested rights in the subject
property under the IPRA and the environmental laws against the earthmoving activity of the respondents. The RTC
dismissed the case outright because the RTC, sitting as an environmental court, mistakenly believed that the NCIP has
jurisdiction over said complaint and that the petitioners had no legal personality to file the petition as the RTC believed
that the petitioners have admitted through their complaint that their right to said property wasn’t yet established. The SC
reverses the RTC decision because the NCIP had no jurisdiction over the matter and that the cause of action wasn’t
grounded on the recognition of their ownership but rather on the enforcement of vested rights under the IPRA.
Furthermore, the SC declared the petitioners to have sufficient legal personality as the successors of Tunged as they have
proven such through documentary and testimonial evidence.

FACTS:

 Petitioners in their complaint claimed, as members of the Ibaloi Tribe and as recognized IP’s, that the subject
property is ancestral land
o They claim that they have been occupying it in the concept of an owner since time immemorial and that
said ownership is recognized under the IPRA
 IPRA should protect their rights to sustainable traditional resource and against unlawful intrusion
and usurpation
o Their application for the issuance of Certificate of Ancestral Land Titles is pending with the NCIP
o They claim that respondents demolished and bulldozed throughout the land, causing destruction of trees
and Sayote plants along with other resources
 violated their rights pursuant to the IPRA
 violate environmental laws such as PD 1586
 violate the Environmental compliance certificate that was issued to respondents
 Baguio properties’ defense
o They invoked their ownership
o And that the petitioners were ultimately collaterally attacking the Torrens Titles of Respondent showing
their ownership.
 RTC Decision whilst acting as an Environmental Court: Dismissed complaint for lack of jurisdiction
o Recognition of petitioners’ rights as Indigenous People’s weren’t the proper subject of an environmental
case
o RTC believed that the NCIP had the exclusive jurisdiction to settle said dispute
o RTC believed that even if the case was within its jurisdiction as an environmental court, the complaint
must be filed by the real party in interest
 RTC believes that petitioners aren’t the Real parties in interest since the relief they seek is
recognition of their ownership and hence the petitioners have admitted they have not
conclusively established their ownership as of that moment
 Filing was premature and hence have no legal personality to initiate the complaint.
 Petitioner’s MR
o NCIP has no jurisdiction since the NCIP only takes cognizance of claims between IPs and since Sta Lucia
Realty and Baguio Properties aren’t IPs, the RTC has jurisdiction
o They insist that the relief they seek is their recognition of their rights under IPRA to their ancestral land
by virtue of their native title and NOT THE ISSUANCE OF THE Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title.
 RTC rejected their MR
 Hence this petition

ISSUES + RULING:
1. Was the lower court’s outright dismissal proper? NO

o In determining which court has jurisdiction over the action, the allegations contained in the complaint
control, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims
asserted therein. Averments in the complaint and character of the relief sought are to be consulted.
(Unduran v Aberasturi)
 IPRA Sec 66: Jurisdiction of the NCIP
 “Shall have jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs”
 “no such dispute shall be brought to the NCIP unless the parties have exhausted all
remedies provided in their customary laws. For this purpose, a certification shall be
issued by the council of Elders/Leaders who participated in the attempt to settle the
dispute that the same has not been resolved.”
 AO 23-2008 in relation to BP 129
 Designates the RTC as a special court to hear, try and decide violations of environmental
law committed within its territorial jurisdiction
o SC examines the complaint
 Petitioners are members of Ibaloi Tribe
 Rightful ownership and possession have been established by testimonial and documentary
evidence since 1924
 They have possessed and exercised ownership since their ancestor died.
 Respondent’s intrusion and usurpation is alleged as well as a violation of the issued
Environmental Compliance Certificate.
 The Relief sought is an Environmental Protection Order to stop Respondent’s earthmoving
activities due to violation of the rights protected by IPRA and the ECC
 Recognize the rights of petitioners as IPs to their ancestral land
 Compel respondents to restore the denuded areas
 Damages for the lost resources
o SC believes outright dismissal improper on 4 grounds
 NCIP has no jurisdiction
 Sec 66 of the IPRA and the case cited above show that there are 2 conditions before the
NCIP may take cognizance of the dispute
 Exhaustion of remedies under customary laws of the parties
 Compliance with the precedent through certification by the council of elders
 These 2 conditions can only be complied with when the disputing parties are of the same
ICC/IP
 If 1 of the disputing parties is a non-IP/ICC, then said party is not bound by the customary
laws as contemplated by the IPRA
 Thus, the proper courts of justice will take cognizance
 RTC has jurisdiction
 Action is not one for a claim of ownership nor issuance of Certificate of Ancestral
Domain Title
 Petitioners have already stated that the petition for Identification, delineation and
recognition of their ancestral claim is already pending with the NCIP
 Their Cause of action is grounded upon alleged earthmoving activities of respondents
 These activities allegedly violate their rights under IPRA and PD 1586 and cause
irreparable damage to the environment life and property
 The case falls under the RTC jurisdiction sitting as a special environmental court
 Petitioner’s entitlement to their claim is irrelevant.
 PETITIONERS HAVE LEGAL PERSONALITY TO FILE THEIR COMPLAINT
 Petitioners supported their allegations with pertinent documents
 Report and recommendation of the NCIP in their petition for Identification,
Delineation and recognition of Ancestral Claim and Issuance of CALTs pending
 before the NCIP
 The report concluded that
 the petitioners have established themselves as the heirs of Tunged
 the subject land was proven to be part of the vast tract of land that Tunged and
his successors have possessed and occupied
 Petitioner’s averments and documents are sufficient to establish their Locus Standi in
instituting this action’
 Arguendo: the complaint could have been re-raffled to a regular court
 Even if the case isn’t within the RTC’s jurisdiction as an environmental court
 It is the regular court, and not the NCIP which has jurisdiction as per AM NO 09-6-8-SC
 Explicitly states that if the complaint is not an environmental complaint the
presiding judge shall refer it to the executive judge for a re-raffle to a regular
court

Disposition: premises considered the instant petition is granted.