Gregorio M. Sanson, joined by his wife Ma.

Lourdes Tirol-Sanson
-versus-
The ATI Indigenous Ciltural Community/ Indigenous Peoples of Boracay Island, represented by Delsa Supetran Justo, and The National
Commission on Indigenous Peoples

G.R. No. 224462 June 10, 2019

Facts:

The Ati Indigenous Cultural Community/ Indigenous Peoples of Boracay Island (ATI) filed a petition for the identification, delineation,
and recognition of its Ancestral Domain Claim and issuance of a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) for a parcel of land
located at Barangay Manoc-manoc, Boracay Island, Malay, Aklan which was granted by the National Commission on Indigenous
Peoples (NCIP) En Banc in its resolution dated August 3, 2010, directing the Ancestral Domain Office to prepare a CADT covering the
property in favour of ATI. Consequently, an Original Certificate of Title (OCT) was issued in the name of ATI by the Register of Deeds
of Kalibo.

In 2011, the claimants filed a Complaint for Cancellation of OCT and of CADT, Reconveyance and Damages before the RTC of Kalibo
on the ground that respondents committed fraudulent acts in the issuance of the CADT. In response, ATI and NCIP invoked the
affirmative defence of lack of jurisdiction of the trial over the subject matter of the case, which was denied by the RTC and instead
issued orders affirming its jurisdiction over the case.

On appeal, CA granted the petition for certiorari in the assailed Decision, reversing the decision of the RTC dismissing the case for
lack of jurisdiction and found that RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, in taking
cognizance of the petitioner’s complaint. It ruled that the complaint for the cancellation of the original CADT issued to respondent
ATI should have been filed with the NCIP, which has exclusive and original jurisdiction over this action, and not with the regular
courts of law.

Issue/s:

Whether or not, the NCIP has jurisdiction over the case

Ruling:

Yes. The NCIP has the “primary jurisdiction” over any appeals for the cancellation of CADT in accordance with the IPRA Law. It is
contrary to the ruling of CA that NCIP has “exclusive and original jurisdiction” over the case.

The Court affirmed the CA’s finding that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of the case for the case
absent any showing that it had been ruled upon by the NCIP, or that the circumstances were present to justify its exception to the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Under Section 66 and Section 54 of the IPRA Law, NCIP has primary jurisdiction over adverse claims
and border disputes arising from the delineation of ancestral domains/lands, and cancellation of fraudulently issued CADTs
regardless of whether the parties are non-ICC/IP, or where the opposing parties are members of different ICC/IP group.

It is clear that respondent ATI participated in the petition for delineation and recognition of its ancestral domain claim and issuance
of CADT over the property. Petitioners could have filed an appeal from the NCIP En Banc Resolution to the Court of Appeals,
pursuant to Rule X, Section 27 of the Revised Rules of Procedure before the NCIP. The records show that no such appeal was taken.
It would then appear that the complaint subsequently filed was an attempt to revive a lost appeal, which cannot be countenanced.
Thus, petition for review on certiorari was denied and CA’s decision was affirmed. The ownership of the 25,310 square-meter land,
or roughly 2-hectares was granted in favour of the ATI.