Decision 12 G.R. No. 201273 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 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 a~pealed to the CA following Section 67 of the IPRA: SEC. 67. Appeals to the Court ofAppeals. - 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 R TC 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 R TC 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-Intervention47 was filed by the Heirs of Mateo Carifio and Bayosa Ortega (Heirs of Carifio 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-CAL T-37. In their Petition-in-Intervention, they seek to have Section 53 49 of the IPRA declared as unconstitutional as it failed to 46 47 48 49 See Heirs of Spouses Reterta v. Spouses Mores and Lopez, supra note 42, at 364. Rollo (Vol. II), pp. 1078-1111. Id. at 1078. SEC. 53. Identification, Delineation and Certification ofAncestral 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; 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 enu1e1erated 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 daimant 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;