SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 201273. August 14, 2019.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by DR. RUBINA O.

CRESENCIO, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE of the BUREAU OF ANIMAL
INDUSTRY and MARILYN V. STA. CATALINA, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-REGIONAL FIELD UNIT-
CORDILLERA ADMINISTRATIVE REGION (DA RFU-CAR) , petitioner, vs.
HEIRS OF IKANG PAUS, namely: (1) OLARTE A. PAUS, SR., (2) HEIRS
OF DAVID PAUS, represented by PETER PAUS, (3) JOSEPHINE BASIL,
(4) HEIRS OF MACARIO A. PAUS, SR., represented by NORBERTO D.
PAUS, (5) HEIRS OF MONTO PAUS, represented by ELIAS PAUS, SR.,
and (6) HEIRS OF FORBASCO PAUS, represented by DOLOR PAUS
MALLARE; THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF BAGUIO CITY, represented
by its REGISTRAR, ATTY. JUANITO K. AMPAGUEY; THE NATIONAL
COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, represented by its
CHAIRPERSON, ZENAIDA BRIGIDA HAMADA-PAWID; THE LAND
REGISTRATION AUTHORITY, represented by its ADMINISTRATOR,
BENEDICTO B. ULEP; AND HONORABLE CLETO R. VILLACORTA III,
PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 6, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BAGUIO
CITY, respondents.

HEIRS OF MATEO CARIÑO and BAYOSA ORTEGA herein represented

by ANDRES CARANTES, RUBY GIRON, JOANNA K. CARIÑO, LEO
CAMILO, CECILIA H. CHAN, and RONALD PEREZ, petitioners-in-
intervention.

DECISION

CAGUIOA, ** J :
p

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari 1 (Petition) under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court assailing the Decision 2 dated February 13, 2012 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in C.A. G.R. SP No. 116926. The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari
assailing the Orders dated August 12, 2010 3 and September 13, 2010 4 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City, Branch 6 in Civil Case No. 7200-R, which dismissed
the Complaint of the Republic of the Philippines (Republic) for reversion, annulment of
documents and cancellation of titles with issuance of temporary restraining order and
writ of preliminary injunction for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Facts

As summarized by the CA, the antecedents are as follows:

Private respondents, the Heirs of Ikang Paus (private respondents),
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 represented by Elias Paus, filed a petition for identification, delineation and
issuance of a Certificate of Ancestral Land Title (CALT) with respondent
National Commission [on Indigenous Peoples] (NCIP). They sought
confirmation of their right to the ancestral land at Section "J" Baguio City and
Witig Suyo, Tuba, Benguet, with an area of 695,737 square meters. The Heirs
of Mateo Cariño opposed the petition, and prayed for its dismissal, cancellation
and revocation.
After due proceedings, the NCIP issued Resolution No. 060-2009, viz.:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Commission
hereby declares and certifies that the parcels of land described
herein is an ancestral land belonging to the Heirs of Ikang Pau[s].
Let the two (2) Certificates of Ancestral Land Title (CALT) bearing
CALT No. CAR-TUB-0309-000208 located at Barangay
Poblacion, Municipality of Tuba, Province of Benguet be issued in
the name of the Heirs of Ikang Paus as indicated in plan SWO-
141102155703-D-A-NCIP.
The protest filed by the Heirs of Mateo Cariño, represented
by Jacqueline Cariño and Judith Cariño is hereby dismissed for
lack of merit.
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Quezon City, March 19, 2009.
Consequently, Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 0-CALT-37 5
covering [a] 623,108[-]square meter lot in Baguio City, was issued in the name
of private respondents on April 24, 2009.
The Heirs of Mateo Cariño filed a motion for reconsideration, but the
NCIP denied it in its Resolution No. 099 dated September 24, 2009.
However, on June 10, 2010, the Republic, through the OSG, questioned
OCT No. 0-CALT-37 in the name of private respondents, and filed a suit for
Reversion, Annulment of Documents and Cancellation of Title with Prayer for
Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Writ of Preliminary
Injunction. It pointed out several irregularities in the issuance of the CALT in
favor of private respondents. x x x
xxx xxx xxx
Private respondents answered the complaint denying all its material
allegations. x x x As special and affirmative defenses, they averred lack of
jurisdiction and lack of cause of action. They pointed out that the complaint
assailed the CALT and the OCT issued on the basis of the CALT, which under
the Indigenous [Peoples] Right[s] Act (IPRA), falls within the jurisdiction of the
NCIP, and not of the regular courts. They asserted that the RTC has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint; hence, the complaint must
be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. x x x
On July 14, 2010, the RTC issued an Order directing the Republic to
show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
In its Compliance, the Republic asserted that the RTC had jurisdiction
over the complaint. Citing Chapter II of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 129, it
maintained that the RTC had jurisdiction over all civil actions which involve the
title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein. The action[s] for
reversion, annulment of documents and cancellation of titles are rights of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 actions or reliefs which are obviously neither within the exclusive nor concurrent
jurisdiction of the NCIP. It further asserted that it was never made a party to
NCIP En Banc Resolution No. 060-2009-AL (2009). Not being a party to the
proceeding, it could not avail of the remedy of filing a petition for review with the
CA. The Republic maintained that the CALT and the consequent OCT was null
and void. As such, they can be attacked either directly [or] collaterally.
The RTC, however, was not at all persuaded by Republic's arguments
and rendered the now challenged Order dismissing the complaint. It sustained
private respondents that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of
the complaint. The RTC explained that the CALT and the corresponding OCT
were issued on the basis of the Resolution 060-2009-AL of the NCIP. Thus,
any challenge against the CALT and the OCT necessarily calls for a review of
the NCIP Resolution which was made as basis for the issuance of the CALT.
However, NCIP is a quasi-judicial body with a rank and stature equal to that of
the RTC; hence, it cannot review the Resolution of the NCIP or any document
that flows from its proceedings.
The RTC disposed, thus:
WHEREFORE, the instant case is dismissed without
prejudice for lack of jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the
complaint.
SO ORDERED. 6
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the RTC denied this. Aggrieved,
petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA. 7
CA Decision

On the procedural issue, the CA ruled that petitioner availed itself of the correct
remedy when it filed a Rule 65 petition to assail the RTC's dismissal without prejudice
of the Complaint. 8 The CA ruled that the Complaint assails the validity of OCT No. 0-
CALT-37 as well as NCIP En Banc Resolution No. 060-2009-AL, Series of 2009 9
(Resolution No. 060-2009-AL). Given this, the RTC does not have jurisdiction to review
the NCIP Resolution as under the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 10 (IPRA), its
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), and even the NCIP Rules on Pleadings,
Practice and Procedure all state that Decisions of the NCIP are reviewable by the CA.
11 For the CA, the NCIP and the RTC are co-equal bodies and the NCIP is therefore
beyond the control of the RTC. 12
The CA also ruled that the record shows that the Republic was aware of
Resolution No. 060-2009-AL as early as 2009 but it only filed the petition for certiorari
on November 25, 2010. The Rules of Court is explicit that a petition under Rule 65
should be filed not later than 60 days from notice. When the Republic filed the petition
for certiorari on November 25, 2010, the period to file a Rule 65 petition has already
expired. 13 The CA also ruled that for it to rule on the propriety of Resolution No. 060-
2009-AL and the validity of the Certificate of Ancestral Land Title (CALT) and OCT, it
would have to appreciate and calibrate evidence, which is not the function of a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65. 14 It found that it would be misplaced to attack and rule on
the validity of the proceedings of the NCIP and on the CALT and OCT in a petition for
certiorari. 15 The dispositive portion of the CA Decision states:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Orders of the
Regional Trial Court of Baguio City in Civil Case No. 7200-R are AFFIRMED.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 SO ORDERED. 16
Petitioner did not move for reconsideration; instead, it directly filed this Petition.

Issues

The issues raised in the Petition are as follows:

I
WHETHER THE [RTC], IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS ORIGINAL AND
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER TITLES TO PROPERTY[,] HAS THE
POWER AND AUTHORITY TO EXAMINE THE DECISION OR RESOLUTION
OF A CO-EQUAL BODY SUCH AS THE NCIP TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY
ARE PATENTLY NULL AND VOID AB INITIO FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ANNULLING AN OCT ISSUED BASED ON SAID DECISION OR
RESOLUTION.
II
WHETHER THE [RTC], IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS ORIGINAL AND
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER TITLES TO PROPERTY[,] MAY REFUSE
TO RECOGNIZE THE VALIDITY OF A DECISION OR RESOLUTION OF A
CO-EQUAL BODY IF IT FINDS THE SAME TO BE PATENTLY NULL AND
VOID.
III
WHETHER A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IS THE PROPER REMEDY TO
ASSAIL THE NULL AND VOID NCIP RESOLUTION AND WHETHER OR NOT
SAID REMEDY IS APPLICABLE IN PETITIONER'S CASE WHERE IT IS NOT
A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDINGS OF SAID RESOLUTION.
IV
WHETHER IT IS PROPER FOR [THE] COURT TO DECIDE ON THE
SUBSTANTIVE MERITS OF THE NINE (9) CAUSES OF ACTION RAISED BY
PETITIONER IN ITS COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE [RTC] ASSAILING
NCIP EN BANC RESOLUTION NO. 060-2009-AL, SERIES OF 2009. 17
Essentially, the issue for the Court's resolution is whether the RTC has
jurisdiction over the Republic's Complaint.

The Court's Ruling

The Petition is partially granted.

RTC has jurisdiction over cases for

reversion and cancellation of
certificates of title.

The RTC and the CA both ruled that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the
Complaint because it sought a review of Resolution No. 060-2009-AL. This is error.
The Court has held in Republic v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila 18 that "
[i]t is axiomatic that the nature of an action and whether the tribunal has jurisdiction over
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 such action are to be determined from the material allegations of the complaint, the law
in force at the time the complaint is filed, and the character of the relief sought
irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims averred.
Jurisdiction is not affected by the pleas or the theories set up by defendant in an answer
to the complaint or a motion to dismiss the same." 19
The Complaint alleged the following: (a) Baguio Stock Farm (BSF) is an
agricultural land of the public domain comprising of Lots 1 and 2 covering 849,721 and
91,622 square meters, respectively, that has been withdrawn from sale or settlement
and reserved for animal breeding purposes under the administration of the Bureau of
Animal Industry, an agency under the Department of Agriculture, pursuant to
Presidential Proclamation No. 603, Series of 1940 (Proclamation No. 603); 20 (b)
sometime in June 2009, a person who identified himself as an heir of Ikang Paus
delivered to BSF a photocopy of OCT No. 0-CALT-37 and claimed that the said title lies
inside BSF; 21 (c) OCT No. 0-CALT-37 was based on CALT No. CAR-BAG-0309-
000207 issued by the NCIP to the Heirs of Ikang Paus; 22 (d) the lot covered by OCT
No. 0-CALT-37 is inside the property covered by Proclamation No. 603 as plotted by
the DENR using the reconstructed and unapproved survey plan together with the
technical description of Lot 1, SWO-14110215703-D-A-NCIP; 23 and (e) Resolution No.
060-2009-AL granted CALT No. CAR-BAG-0309-000207 to the Heirs of Ikang Paus. 24
The Complaint also states nine causes of action, as follows:
1. Resolution No. 060-2009-AL was null and void for failing to implead the
Director of Lands following Section 53 (f) of the IPRA; 25
2. the CALT was issued contrary to Section 12 of the IPRA as the application
of the Heirs of Ikang Paus was opposed by other members of the Ibaloi
tribe; 26
3. the CALT was patently defective for failure to secure the signature and
approval of all the NCIP commissioners; 27
4. no Torrens title can be issued over BSF, a government reservation, which
could only be covered by a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT),
and not a CALT; 28
5. BSF is protected from ancestral domain or ancestral land claims following
Section 7 (g) of the IPRA; 29
6. the issuance of the OCT/CALT was void because of the NCIP's failure to
negotiate with the Republic following the NCIP's Administrative Order No.
1, Series of 1998; 30
7. the issuance of the CALT was defective because the adjacent owners
were not notified; 31
8. the Heirs of Ikang Paus, even assuming that they may be issued an OCT,
failed to prove that they possessed and occupied the property in the
concept of owner since time immemorial or for a period of not less than 30
years; 32 and
9. no CALT may be issued over the BSF as it is within the Baguio Townsite
reservation. 33
The Complaint thus seeks the nullification and cancellation of (a) OCT No. 0-
CALT-37 and any derivative title issued pursuant thereto; (b) CALT No. CAR-BAG-
0309-000207; and (c) the reconstructed and unapproved survey plan together with the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 technical description of Lot 1, SWO-14110215703-D-A-NCIP. 34 Only the last two reliefs
emanated from Resolution No. 060-2009-AL. The Complaint also impleaded the
Register of Deeds of Baguio City, the NCIP, and the LRA.
To the mind of the Court, the case is not a review of the NCIP En Banc
Resolution because a subsequent event occurred that gave rise to a cause of action for
reversion and cancellation of a Torrens title, namely, the issuance of OCT No. 0-CALT-
37. This is the reason the Republic has impleaded the Register of Deeds of Baguio City
and the LRA.
In fact, the Republic alleges that OCT No. 0-CALT-37 should not have been
issued since it is land of the public domain. This, in turn, requires a factual
determination of whether the land is indeed of public domain and whether OCT No. 0-
CALT-37 embraces land inside the BSF. This then raises the issue of whether a CALT
may be issued over it, and whether an OCT may be issued arising from the CALT. This
is therefore a complaint for the reversion of a land to the public domain and the
cancellation of a Torrens title covering a public land, both matters being within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC.
Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, 35 the RTC has jurisdiction over the following
civil cases:
SEC. 19. Jurisdiction in Civil Cases. — Regional Trial Courts shall
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
xxx xxx xxx
(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or 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)
except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings,
original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
xxx xxx xxx
(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the
value of the property in controversy exceeds One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) or, in such other cases in Metro Manila, where the demand,
exclusive of the abovementioned items exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000.00).
I n Republic v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila , 36 the Court held that "
[a]ctions for cancellation of title and reversion x x x belong to the class of cases that
'involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein' and where
the assessed value of the property exceeds P20,000.00, fall under the jurisdiction of the
RTC." 37
As the Court held in Malabanan v. Republic 38 "[i]n a reversion suit, we should
emphasize, the attack is directed not against the judgment ordering the issuance of title,
but against the title that is being sought to be cancelled either because the judgment
was not validly rendered, or the title issued did not faithfully reflect the land referred to in
the judgment, or because no judgment was rendered at all." 39
The allegations of the Republic in the Complaint squarely assert a reversion suit
as described above. It is attacking OCT No. 0-CALT-37 because it arose from
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 Resolution No. 060-2009-AL, which the Republic claims was not validly rendered.
The Court is not unmindful that in ruling on the issue of the validity of OCT No. 0-
CALT-37, the Court will necessarily rule on the validity of CALT No. CAR-BAG-0309-
000207, and the reconstructed and unapproved survey plan together with the technical
description of Lot 1, SWO-14110215703-D-A-NCIP, both of which were issued and
approved in Resolution 060-2009-AL. This, however, does not remove the Complaint
from the RTC's jurisdiction, and as described above, even confirms it. Again, the cause
of action of the Republic is for the reversion to the public domain of the lot covered by
OCT No. 0-CALT-37 and the cancellation of the title. In ruling on this issue, the RTC
may dwell on the validity of the proceedings of the NCIP, which gave rise to the
issuance of the Torrens title. The Court's ruling in Republic v. Bacas 40 (Bacas) is
instructive:
The success of the annulment of title does not solely depend on the
existence of actual and extrinsic fraud, but also on the fact that a judgment
decreeing registration is null and void. In Collado v. Court of Appeals and the
Republic, the Court declared that any title to an inalienable public land is void
ab initio. Any procedural infirmities attending the filing of the petition for
annulment of judgment are immaterial since the LRC never acquired jurisdiction
over the property. All proceedings of the LRC involving the property are null
and void and, hence, did not create any legal effect. A judgment by a court
without jurisdiction can never attain finality. In Collado, the Court made the
following citation:
The Land Registration Court has no jurisdiction over
non-registrable properties, such as public navigable rivers
which are parts of the public domain, and cannot validly adjudge
the registration of title in favor of private applicant. Hence, the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga as regards
the Lot No. 2 of Certificate of Title No. 15856 in the name of
petitioners may be attacked at any time, either directly or
collaterally, by the State which is not bound by any
prescriptive period provided for by the Statute of Limitations. 41
(Emphasis in the original)
I n Bacas, the principal prayer for cancellation of the Torrens title entailed the
nullification of a decision of the LRC, a co-equal body of the RTC. Here, similarly, as a
result of the prayer for reversion and cancellation of title, the RTC will necessarily have
to rule on the validity of Resolution No. 060-2009-AL. The RTC also has to rule on
whether the Register of Deeds of Baguio City acted correctly in issuing OCT No. 0-
CALT-37 based on CALT No. CAR-BAG-0309-000207.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the RTC committed grave abuse of
discretion when it dismissed the Republic's Complaint for lack of jurisdiction. As the
Court ruled in Heirs of Spouses Reterta v. Spouses Mores and Lopez : 42 "The term
grave abuse of discretion connotes whimsical and capricious exercise of judgment as is
equivalent to excess, or lack of jurisdiction. The abuse must be so patent and gross as
to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty
enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law as where the power is exercised
in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility." 43
The RTC's dismissal of the Complaint is a refusal to perform its duty enjoined by
law as it is the court that has jurisdiction over the Complaint. The CA therefore
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 committed reversible error in affirming the RTC's dismissal of the Complaint.
Nonetheless, the Court finds that the Republic's prayer that the Court rule on its
nine causes of action as raised in its Complaint to be premature. A ruling on the nine
causes of action requires the presentation and reception of evidence, a function the
Court cannot discharge as it is not a trier of facts. There being no trial on the merits yet,
it is improper for the Court to rule on the nine causes of action in the Complaint.

NCIP does not have jurisdiction over

the Republic's Complaint.

As further confirmation that the RTC has jurisdiction over the case is the fact that
the NCIP does not have jurisdiction over issues involving non-Indigenous Cultural
Communities (ICCs)/Indigenous Peoples (IPs). The NCIP's jurisdiction is defined in
Section 66 of the IPRA:
SEC. 66. Jurisdiction of the NCIP. — The NCIP, through its regional
offices, shall have jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving rights of
ICCs/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
of Elders/Leaders who participated in the attempt to settle the dispute that the
same has not been resolved, which certification shall be a condition precedent
to the filing of a petition with the NCIP.
Interpreting this provision, the Court held in Lim v. Gamosa 44 that the NCIP has
no power and authority to decide controversies involving non-ICCs/IPs even if it
involves rights of ICCs/IPs, as these disputes should be brought before a court of
general jurisdiction, thus:
Once again, the primacy of customs and customary law sets the
parameters for the NCIP's limited and special jurisdiction and its consequent
application in dispute resolution. Demonstrably, the proviso in Section 66 of the
IPRA limits the jurisdiction of the NCIP to cases of claims and disputes
involving rights of ICCs/IPs where both parties are ICCs/IPs because customs
and customary law cannot be made to apply to non-ICCs/IPs within the
parameters of the NCIP's limited and special jurisdiction.
Indeed, non-ICCs/IPs cannot be subjected to this special and limited
jurisdiction of the NCIP even if the dispute involves rights of ICCs/IPs since the
NCIP has no power and authority to decide on a controversy involving, as
well, rights of non-ICCs/IPs which may be brought before a court of
general jurisdiction within the legal bounds of rights and remedies. Even
as a practical concern, non-IPs and non-members of ICCs ought to be excepted
from the NCIP's competence since it cannot determine the right-duty
correlative, and breach thereof, between opposing parties who are ICCs/IPs
and non-ICCs/IPs, the controversy necessarily contemplating application
of other laws, not only customs and customary law of the ICCs/IPs. In
short, the NCIP is only vested with jurisdiction to determine the rights of
ICCs/IPs based on customs and customary law in a given controversy against
another ICC/IP, but not the applicable law for each and every kind of ICC/IP
controversy even against an opposing non-ICC/IP. 45 (Additional emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
Here, although the dispute involves the rights of the Heirs of Ikang Paus, who
claim to be members of the Ibaloi tribe, the Complaint involves non-ICCs/IPs such as
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 the Republic, the Register of Deeds of Baguio, and even the LRA. The NCIP cannot
rule on the rights of non-ICCs/IPs which should be brought before a court of general
jurisdiction. Here, the dispute was validly lodged with the RTC as discussed above.
Further, given the special limited jurisdiction of the NCIP, only those cases over
which the NCIP has jurisdiction may be appealed to the CA following Section 67 of the
IPRA:
SEC. 67. Appeals to the Court of Appeals. — Decisions of the NCIP
shall be appealable to the Court of Appeals by way of a petition for review.
It was therefore error for the RTC and the CA to treat the Complaint as an appeal
from Resolution No. 060-2009-AL because based on the allegations of the Complaint,
the NCIP could not have jurisdiction over it. And in fact, given that NCIP cases are
limited to ICCs/IPs, it would even be legally impermissible for a non-ICC/IP to appeal a
decision of the NCIP.
This further confirms that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion because
if the RTC dismissal of the Complaint is not undone, the Republic will be denied any
kind of remedy to protect its rights and interest over the property. 46

Petition-in-intervention lacks basis.

A Petition-in-Intervention 47 was filed by the Heirs of Mateo Cariño and Bayosa

Ortega (Heirs of Cariño and Ortega). They admit that they were not parties to Civil Case
No. 7200-R, 48 but claim that they have an interest in the property covered by OCT No.
0-CALT-37. In their Petition-in-Intervention, they seek to have Section 53 49 of the IPRA
declared as unconstitutional as it failed to provide sufficient standards to guide the
assessment and approval of ancestral land claims, which allows an overreaching and
unwarranted exercise of discretion on the part of the NCIP and the Ancestral Domains
Office (ADO). 50
The intervention lacks basis.
The requisites for intervention of a non-party, as the Court ruled in Asia's
Emerging Dragon Corp. v. Department of Transportation and Communications , 51 are
as follows:
1. Legal interest
(a) in the matter in controversy; or
(b) in the success of either of the parties; or
(c) against both parties; or
(d) person is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution
or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an
officer thereof;
2. Intervention will not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of rights of
original parties;
3. Intervenor's rights may not be fully protected in a separate proceeding.52
The Heirs of Cariño and Ortega failed to prove a legal interest in the controversy.
The Petition raises whether the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, ruled correctly in
dismissing the Republic's Complaint for reversion and annulment of judgment. The
Heirs of Cariño and Ortega do not claim that they have any interest in the outcome of
this case. Instead, they would like the Court to rule on the constitutionality of Section 53
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 of the IPRA. Based on their own allegations, therefore, intervention is improper.
Further, ruling on the constitutionality of Section 53 will delay the adjudication of
the issue of whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the Republic's Complaint. More
importantly, even if allowed to intervene, the issue on the constitutionality of Section 53
of the IPRA is not the very lis mota of this Petition of the Republic. As the Court held in
Spouses Mirasol v. Court of Appeals: 53
Jurisprudence has laid down the following requisites for the exercise of
this power: First, there must be before the Court an actual case calling for the
exercise of judicial review. Second, the question before the Court must be ripe
for adjudication. Third, the person challenging the validity of the act must have
standing to challenge. Fourth, the question of constitutionality must have been
raised at the earliest opportunity, and lastly, the issue of constitutionality must
be the very lis mota of the case.
As a rule, the courts will not resolve the constitutionality of a law, if the
controversy can be settled on other grounds. The policy of the courts is to avoid
ruling on constitutional questions and to presume that the acts of the political
departments are valid, absent a clear and unmistakable showing to the
contrary. To doubt is to sustain. This presumption is based on the doctrine of
separation of powers. This means that the measure had first been carefully
studied by the legislative and executive departments and found to be in accord
with the Constitution before it was finally enacted and approved.
The present case was instituted primarily for accounting and specific
performance. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that PNB's obligation to
render an accounting is an issue, which can be determined, without having to
rule on the constitutionality of P.D. No. 579. In fact there is nothing in P.D. No.
579, which is applicable to PNB's intransigence in refusing to give an
accounting. The governing law should be the law on agency, it being
undisputed that PNB acted as petitioners' agent. In other words, the requisite
that the constitutionality of the law in question be the very lis mota of the case
is absent. Thus we cannot rule on the constitutionality of P.D. No. 579. 54
Here, it is unnecessary to rule on the constitutionality of Section 53 of the IPRA in
order to arrive at the conclusion that the RTC has jurisdiction over the Republic's
Complaint.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is PARTLY GRANTED . The
Decision dated February 13, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. SP No. 116926
is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of
Baguio City, Branch 6 which is directed to proceed with dispatch with the trial on the
merits as well as the resolution of Civil Case No. 7200-R.
The Petition-in-Intervention of the Heirs of Mateo Cariño and Bayosa Ortega is
DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
J.C. Reyes, Jr., Lazaro-Javier and Zalameda, JJ., concur.
Carpio, * J., is on official leave.

Footnotes

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com

 * On official leave.

** Designated Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2688 dated July 30, 2019.

1. Rollo (Vol. I), pp. 34-96, excluding Annexes.

2. Id. at 97-115. Penned by Associate Justice Angelita A. Gacutan and concurred in by

Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Francisco P. Acosta.

3. Id. at 408-414. Penned by Presiding Judge Cleto R. Villacorta III.

4. Id. at 429-449.
5. Appearing as OCT No. O-CALT-37 in some parts of the records.

6. Rollo (Vol. I), pp. 99-104.

7. Id. at 98, 105.

8. Id. at 107-108.

9. Id. at 150-163.
10. Republic Act No. 8371, entitled "AN ACT TO RECOGNIZE, PROTECT AND PROMOTE
THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES/INDIGENOUS
PEOPLES, CREATING A NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES,
ESTABLISHING IMPLEMENTING MECHANISMS, APPROPRIATING FUNDS
THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," October 29, 1997.

11. Rollo (Vol. I), pp. 109-111.

12. Id. at 111.

13. Id. at 113.

14. Id. at 114.

15. Id.

16. Id. at 114-115.

17. Id. at 56-57.

18. 698 Phil. 429 (2012).

19. Id. at 435.

20. Rollo (Vol. I), p. 197.

21. Id. at 198.

22. Id.

23. Id. at 199.

24. Id. at 200.

25. Id. at 203-206.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 26. Id. at 206-208.

27. Id. at 208-209.

28. Id. at 209-213.

29. Id. at 213-215.

30. Id. at 215-218.

31. Id. at 218-221.

32. Id. at 221-224.

33. Id. at 224-225.

34. Id. at 227.

35. THE JUDICIARY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1980.

36. Supra note 18.

37. Id. at 435-436.

38. G.R. No. 201821, September 19, 2018, accessed at

<http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64605>.

39. Id.
40. 721 Phil. 808 (2013).

41. Id. at 828-829.

42. 671 Phil. 346 (2011).

43. Id. at 364.

44. 774 Phil. 31 (2015).

45. Id. at 61-62.

46. See Heirs of Spouses Reterta v. Spouses Mores and Lopez, supra note 42, at 364.

47. Rollo (Vol. II), pp. 1078-1111.

48. Id. at 1078.

49. SEC. 53. Identification, Delineation and Certification of Ancestral Lands :

a) The allocation of lands within any ancestral domain to individual or indigenous
corporate (family or clan) claimants shall be left to the ICCs/IPs concerned to decide in
accordance with customs and traditions;
b) Individual and indigenous corporate claimants of ancestral lands which are not within
ancestral domains, may have their claims officially established by filing applications for
the identification and delineation of their claims with the Ancestral Domains Office. An
individual or recognized head of a family or clan may file such application in his behalf
or in behalf of his family or clan, respectively;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 c) Proofs of such claims shall accompany the application form which shall include the
testimony under oath of elders of the community and other documents directly or
indirectly attesting to the possession or occupation of the areas since time immemorial
by the individual or corporate claimants in the concept of owners which shall be any of
the authentic documents enumerated under Sec. 52 (d) of this Act, including tax
declarations and proofs of payment of taxes;
d) The Ancestral Domains Office may require from each ancestral claimant the
submission of such other documents, Sworn Statements and the like, which in its
opinion, may shed light on the veracity of the contents of the application/claim;

e) Upon receipt of the applications for delineation and recognition of ancestral land
claims, the Ancestral Domains Office shall cause the publication of the application and a
copy of each document submitted including a translation in the native language of the
ICCs/IPs concerned in a prominent place therein for at least fifteen (15) days. A copy of
the document shall also be posted at the local, provincial, and regional offices of the
NCIP and shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for two
(2) consecutive weeks to allow other claimants to file opposition thereto within fifteen
(15) days from the date of such publication: Provided , That in areas where no such
newspaper exists, broadcasting in a radio station will be a valid substitute: Provided,
further , That mere posting shall be deemed sufficient if both newspapers and radio
station are not available;

f) Fifteen (15) days after such publication, the Ancestral Domains Office shall investigate
and inspect each application, and if found to be meritorious, shall cause a parcellary
survey of the area being claimed. The Ancestral Domains Office shall reject any claim
that is deemed patently false or fraudulent after inspection and verification. In case of
rejection, the Ancestral Domains Office shall give the applicant due notice, copy
furnished all concerned, containing the grounds for denial. The denial shall be
appealable to the NCIP. In case of conflicting claims among individual or indigenous
corporate claimants, the Ancestral Domains Office shall cause the contending parties to
meet and assist them in coming up with a preliminary resolution of the conflict, without
prejudice to its full adjudication according to Sec. 62 of this Act. In all proceedings for
the identification or delineation of the ancestral domains as herein provided, the Director
of Lands shall represent the interest of the Republic of the Philippines; and

g) The Ancestral Domains Office shall prepare and submit a report on each and every
application surveyed and delineated to the NCIP which shall, in turn, evaluate the report
submitted. If the NCIP finds such claim meritorious, it shall issue a certificate of
ancestral land, declaring and certifying the claim of each individual or corporate (family
or clan) claimant over ancestral lands.

50. Rollo (Vol. II), p. 1087.

51. 572 Phil. 523 (2008).

52. Id. at 527.

53. 403 Phil. 760 (2001).

54. Id. at 773-774.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com