1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; STATUTES; THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS ACT OF 1997 (R.A. NO. 8371); NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLE; JURISDICTION; THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES HAS ORIGINAL AND EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER CLAIMS AND DISPUTES INVOLVING ANCESTRAL LAND AND NOT WITH THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS.- Section 66 of R.A. No. 8371 otherwise known as "The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997" vests with the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims and disputes involving ancestral land and not with the Regional Trial Court.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION; COURTS CANNOT AND WILL NOT RESOLVE A CONTROVERSY INVOLVING A QUESTION WHICH IS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.-Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, courts cannot and will not resolve a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, especially where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact.

3. CIVIL PROCEDURE; CERTIFICATE AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING; A CERTIFICATE

AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING IS REQUIRED ONLY IN COMPLAINTS OR OTHER INITIATORY PLEADINGS, HENCE, AN APPEAL NOT BEING AN INITIATORY PLEADING DOES NOT REQUIRE A SAID CERTIFICATION.-Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court provides that a certificate against forum shopping is required' only in complaints or other initiatory pleadings. An appeal cannot be considered as an initiatory pleading, thus, dispensing the need to attach a certification thereon. The appeal relates to some question that is collateral to the main object of the action and is connected with and dependent upon the principal remedy, Apropos, as an incident or consequence of the original petition for injunction, the appeal, not being an initiatory pleading, dispels the requirement of a forum shopping certification.

APPEAL from a Resolution of the Regional Trial Court of La Trinidad, Benguet, Branch 63.

of the case, as well as the Order dated 23 July 2003 denying a reconsideration thereof.

The Facts

The pertinent facts and antecedent proceedings, as borne by the records, are as follows:

Appellants are co-owners of a parcel of land located at Pula-Malatara, Itogon, Benguet, covered by ARP No. 99-003003592, used primarily as pasture land, hunting ground and kaingin and inherited from their predecessor-in-interest, a certain Laurencio Fianza. Pedro Abance, herein appellee, is the claimant of an unregistered parcel of land situated at Lawed, Dalupirip, Itogon, Benguet. With the construction of the San Roque Dam through the San Roque Multi-Purpose Project, all lands located in Barangays Ampucao and Dalupirip, Itogon Municipality, Benguet Province that were within or near the proposed reservoir were affected and thus ordered surveyed at the instance of the National Power Corporation (NPC, for brevity). Thus, both parties claimed payment of just compensation from the NPC.

The lands were also claimed by members of the Ibaloi, Kankanaey and Kalanguya ethno-linguistic groups. Appellants opposed the claims which was however denied by the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples-Cordillera Administrative Region (NCIP-CAR) in a Resolution dated August 23, 2001. However, on even date, appellants filed a protest before the CENR Officer, Department of Environment and Natural Resources or DENR-CAR, Pacdal, Baguio City. Claiming that they filed an earlier claim with the DENR, appellants sought to reconsider the said Resolution and that trial on the merits be conducted.

Treating the motion as an appeal, the Regional Director for NCIP-CAR forwarded the same to the NCIP. The NCIP dismissed the protest-cum-appeal in an Order3 dated 08 May 2002, for failure of the parties to

2 Original Records, p. 7.

3 Rollo, pp. 9-12.

exhaust remedies provided by customary laws and practices, without prejudice to adjudication in accordance with the traditional conflict resolution system of the indigenous peoples/indigenous cultural community or IP/ICC where the parties belong. After the dismissal of their protestcum-appeal, appellants maintained the same before the NPC, particularly before the Inter-Agency Sub-Task Force under its established procedure for the settlement of disputes.

Alleging that appellee NPC had processed and was about to release the just compensation in favor of Pedro Abance for the land allegedly claimed by herein appellants, to their damage and prejudice, the latter filed 23 December 2002 a Petition for Injunction and Preliminary Injunction and Application with for Temporary Restraining Order with the RTC of La Trinidad, Benguet. They prayed to enjoin the NPC through its subsidiary, the San Roque MultiPurpose Project from processing or releasing just compensation appertaining to Pedro Abance as they were never called to appear in relation to the dispute. Alternatively, they asked for the issuance of an order declaring them to be the true and rightful recipients of the just compensation being claimed by Pedro Abance.

the

Defendants-appellees filed a Motion to Dismiss asserting that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case and that the petition states no cause of action. They averred that the lands affected by the construction of the San Roque Dam over which both parties claimed compensation are ancestral lands and have been private properties of the "first citizens of the country", the "Indigenous Peoples". Thus, involving as it is the rights of ICCs/ IPs, it is the NCIP that has jurisdiction over the case. They also argued that the property claimed by plaintiffs-appellants is different from that claimed by them. The ancestral land claimed by the appellants is

4 Original Records, p. 12. 5 Original Records, pp. 2-6. 6 Original Records, pp. 36-39.

situated at Malatara, Dalupirip, Itogon, Benguet while that claimed by them is located at Lawed, Dalupirip, Itogon, Benguet, south of Malatara and separated by five (5) barangays and a creek. Appellees further alleged that appellants are not real parties-in-interest because the basis of their claim is the Tax Declaration of Laurencio Fianza, and they filed the case in a representative capacity without being clothed with a Special Power of Attorney.

On 17 February 2003, NPC filed its Answer with Counterclaim' claiming that appellants requested the NPC to hold in abeyance the payment of Abance's claims over the parcel of land claimed by the latter. By reason of such request, Abance's claim remained unprocessed as it is the NPC's policy to pay only claimants whose claims were duly validated and uncontested. At the instance of appellants, it deferred payment to Abance as early as December 2001. Thus, there is no factual basis for the alleged imminent release of payment of just compensation to Abance.

In their Comments to the motion, appellants denied having alleged that the subject matter of the case is an ancestral land. They further averred that the RTC is a court of general jurisdiction and as such, it has jurisdiction over all subject matter that other courts may not have. R.A. No. 8371(The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997) does not deprive the RTC of its jurisdiction notwithstanding the facts that the parties thereto are members of the Indigenous Cultural Community.

In a Resolution dated 20 March 2003, the RTC, Branch 63, La Trinidad, Benguet dismissed the petition for injunction for lack of jurisdiction. The trial court expounded that appellants admitted in their complaint that the property involved is an ancestral land and pursuant to R.A. No. 8371, it is the NCIP that has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. It further opined that with the filing of the protest with the NCIP, appellants recognized the jurisdiction

7 Original Records, pp. 60-63.
8 Original Records, pp. 65-69
9 Original Records, pp. 73-76.

of the latter over the claims, and hence, are estopped from denying such jurisdiction of the NCIP. The trial court further ruled that the inclusion of the NPC which is not a party to the ancestral claims is of no moment since its role is only to disburse the compensation of the subject land only to the party that can prove its legal claim thereto. In ruling that it has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, the trial court opted not to discuss the other ground raised in the motion and disposed of the case in this wise:

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant case is hereby dismissed as this Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter.

No costs.

SO ORDERED."10

The motion for reconsideration thereof was denied in an Order11 dated 23 July 2003.

The Issue

Hence, appellants filed the instant recourse on the lone assignment of error, to wit:

"THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT IT HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE."

Stated otherwise, the issue is whether the RTC has jurisdiction over this case.

In his Brief, Pedro Abance averred that the instant appeal be dismissed for lack of certification on non-forum shopping.

The Court's Ruling

We find the appeal bereft of merit.

Section 66 of R.A. No. 8371 otherwise known as "The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997" vests with the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims and disputes involving ancestral land and not with the Regional Trial Courts, thus:

10 Original Records, p. 76.
11 Original Records, p. 102.

Sec. 66. Jurisdiction of the NCIP.-The NCIP through its regional officers, shall have jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving rights of ICC/

IPs: Provided however, That no such dispute shall be brought to the NCIP unless the parties have exhausted all remedies provided under their customary laws. For this purpose, a certification shall be issued by the Council for Elders/Leaders who participated in the attempt to settle the dispute that the same has not been resolved, which

subject matter of the case consistent with the provisions of R.A. No. 8371 that jurisdiction over disputes relative to ancestral land and claims involving rights of indigenous cultural communities and indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs), is vested with the NCIP.

In fine, appellants cannot deny the

Such jurisdiction is bolstered by Administrative Circular No.1, Series of 2003, or the Rules of Pleadings, Practice and Procedure before the NCIP, specifically Section 5 thereof which states, to wit:

Section 5. Jurisdiction of the NCIP.-The NCIP through its Regional Hearing Officers shall exercise jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving rights of ICC/IPs and all cases pertaining to the implementation, enforcement and interpretation of RA 8371 including but not limited to the following:

1. Original and exclusive jurisdiction of the RHO:

a. Cases involving disputes and controversies over ancestral lands/domains of ICC/IPs.

Questioning the dismissal of the petition for injunction, appellants asseverate that what was attacked in the petition was the propriety of the act of the NPC in processing the claims of Pedro Abance despite the dispute between them concerning the lands affected by the San Roque Multi-Purpose Dam Project. They insist that the RTC has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the petition since it does not merely refer to their claims over the disputed ancestral lands. Appellants however asked the trial court to declare them as the true and rightful recipients of the just compensation over the disputed property.

It is beyond doubt that the subject matter of the petition for injunction refers to the conflicting claims of appellants and appellee Pedro Abance over certain parcels of ancestral land taken by the NPC for the construction of the San Roque MultiPurpose Dam Project and who among them should be paid the just compensation. Manifestly, the trial court correctly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction over the

same when they filed a protest-cum-appeal against the other claimants of the disputed property which was eventually dismissed for failure to resort to customary laws and practices in the settlement thereof and the

lack of certification of non-resolution issued by the Council of Elders/Leaders being jurisdictional. jurisdictional. Clearly, resort to the RTC after obtaining an adverse decision from the NCIP which undeniably has jurisdiction over the petition is a violation of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. As amply elucidated, the petition before the trial court seeks a determination of who among the claimants of the disputed property, an ancestral land, should be awarded the just compensation which was affected by the construction of the San Roque Multi-Purpose Dam Project of the NPC.

Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, courts cannot and will not resolve a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, especially where the question demands the exercise of of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact.12 In Villaflor vs. Court of Appeals, 13 the Supreme Court revisited the significance of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, to wit:

In recent years, it has been the jurisprudential trend to apply this doctrine to cases involving matters that demand the special competence of administrative agencies even if the question involved is also judicial in character.* * *

In cases where the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is clearly applicable, the court cannot

12 Villaflor vs. Court of Appeals, 280 SCRA 297, 327.

13 Supra.

arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy, the jurisdiction over which is initially

lodged with an administrative body of special competence.**

Accordingly, while it is true that the RTC is a court of general jurisdiction, it would nonetheless be proper to yield its jurisdiction in favor of an administrative body when the determination of underlying factual issues requires the special competence or knowledge of the latter. We note that before the NCIP, if not for the dismissal of the protest-cum-appeal, the NCIP would have to pass upon the same factual issue raised in appellants' petition before the trial court. Thus, the RTC did not commit an error in dismissing the petition for injunction if only to avoid conflicting factual findings between it and the NCIP.

Granting arguendo that the trial court has jurisdiction over the petition, the same must nonetheless fail on its merits. It must be emphasized that the NPC had in fact held in abeyance the processing and release of the just compensation owing to Pedro Abance pursuant to its policy to pay only the claims which were duly validated and uncontested.14 We also note the NPC's commitment to the appellants that no payments on the angestral land claims would be released until the proper agencies resolve the issue of the lawful claimants.15 Undoubtedly, appellants have no clear legal right to be protected by a writ of injunction, justifying the dismissal of their petition before the trial court.

On the issue of whether the instant appeal must be dismissed for failure of

14 Original Records, pp. 60-61.

15 Appellees Brief of Pedro Abance, p. 131, Rollo.

appellants to attach a certification against forum shopping, We rule in the negative. (Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court provides that a certificate against forum shopping is required only in complaints or other initiatory pleadings. An appeal cannot be considered as an initiatory pleading, thus, dispensing the need to attach a certification thereon. The appeal relates to some question that is collateral to the main object of the action and is connected with and dependent upon the principal remedy. Apropos, as an incident or consequence of the original petition for injunction, the appeal, not being initiatory pleading, dispels the requirement of a forum shopping certification.)16

WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the appeal is DENIED and the assailed resolution and order are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Roxas and Garcia, JJ., concur.

Appeal denied and the resolution and order affirmed.

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.

(SGD.) JOSEFINA GUEVARA-SALONGA
Associate Justice

Chairman Eleventh Division

16 Rule 44 (Ordinary Appealed Cases) in relation to Rule 50 Section 1 on Grounds for Dismissal of Appeal of the Revised Rules of Court.

051822-3