10/12/2019 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In his Concurring Opinion, Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen likewise voted to dismiss the petition for review on certiorari, and to affirm the assailed decision and resolution of the CA. He concurred with the ponencia in holding that respondents' action, alleged to be involving a claim over the ancestral domain of an ICC/IP, does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the NCIP. In sum, the Court finds no substantial argument in petitioners' motions for reconsideration to justify a reversal of its ruling that jurisdiction over the subject matter of respondents' original and amended complaint based on the allegations therein lies with the RTC. The crucial issue in this case, however, revolves around the complex nature of the jurisdiction of the NCIP, as shown by the different but well-reasoned opinions of the Associate Justices concerned vis-a-vis the arguments in petitioners' motions for reconsideration. To recall, the ponencia has held that pursuant to Section 66 of the IPRA, the NCIP shall have jurisdiction over claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs only when they arise between or among parties belonging to the same ICC/IP group. When such claims and disputes arise between or among parties who do not belong to the same ICC/IP group, the case shall fall under the jurisdiction of the regular courts, instead of the NCIP. Thus, even if the real issue involves dispute over a land which appear to be located within the ancestral domain of an ICC/IP, it is not the NCIP but the RTC which has the power to hear, try and decide the case. In exceptional cases under Sections 52, 54 and 62 of the IPRA, the NCIP shall still have jurisdiction over such claims and disputes even if the parties involved do not belong to the same ICC/IP group. Justice Velasco's position is that the NCIP has jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs, regardless of whether or not they belong to the same IP/IC group. According to him, all cases and disputes where both parties are ICCs/IPs fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the NCIP; all cases and disputes where one of the parties is a non-ICC/IP are covered by the jurisdiction of the regular courts regardless of the subject matter even if it involves ancestral domains or lands of ICCs/IPs; and regular courts have jurisdiction over cases and disputes as long as there are parties who are non-ICCs/IPs. For Justice Brion, the IPRA's intent is neither to grant the NCIP sole jurisdiction over disputes involving ICCs/IPs, nor to disregard the rights of non-ICCs/IPs under national laws. However, he stresses that the NCIP maintains primary jurisdiction over: (1) adverse claims and border disputes arising from delineation of ancestral domains/lands; (2) cancellation of fraudulently issued Certificate of Ancestral Domain Titles (CADTs); and (3) disputes and violations of ICCs/IPs rights between members of the same ICC/IP group. Justice Perez opines that neither does the IPRA confer original and exclusive jurisdiction to the NCIP over all claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs. He adds that 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 elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63044 5/32