10/12/2019 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly that the NCIP has jurisdiction over cases involving IP rights whether or not the parties are IPs or non-ICCs/IPs; (8) the NCIP as quasi-judicial agency provides IPs mechanisms for access to justice in the fulfillment of the State's obligations to respect, protect and fulfill IP's human rights; (9) the NCIP has the competence and skill that would greatly advance the administration of justice with respect to protection and fulfillment of ICC/IP rights/human rights; and (10) recognition and enforcement of customary laws and indigenous justice systems fulfill the State's obligations as duty bearers in the enforcement of human rights. While the petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration and the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration fail to persuade, there is a need to clarify the NCIP's jurisdiction over claims and disputes involving rights of ICC/IPs. The Court finds no merit in petitioners' contention that jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of a case is not merely based on the allegations of the complaint in certain cases where the actual issues are evidenced by subsequent pleadings. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of the court cannot be made to depend on the defenses raised by the defendant in the answer or a motion to dismiss; otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would depend almost entirely on the defendant.[15] Suffice it also to state that the Court is unanimous[16] in denying the petition for review on certiorari on the ground that the CA correctly ruled that the subject matter of the original and amended complaint based on the allegations therein is within the jurisdiction of the RTC. In his Concurring Opinion, Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. concurred with the ponencia that the RTC has jurisdiction over the case: Both original and amended complaints, accion reivindicatoria and injunction, respectively, are incapable of pecuniary estimation; thus falling within the jurisdiction of the RTC. As correctly pointed out by the ponencia, "jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action." It cannot be acquired through a waiver or enlarged by the mission of the parties or conferred by acquiescence of the court.[17] In his Separate Opinion, Justice Arturo D. Brion also concurred with the ponencia's conclusion that the RTC has jurisdiction over the case because (1) the CA correctly ruled that the RTC's February 14, 2005 Order is not tainted with grave abuse of discretion, (2) jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by law and the allegations of the complaint; and (3) the NCIP's jurisdiction over disputes is limited to cases where both parties are members of the same ICC/IP group. In his Concurring Opinion, Justice Jose Portugal Perez agreed with the ponencia that jurisdiction over the original and amended complaint, accion reivindicatoria and injunction, correctly lies with the RTC, based on the principle that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63044 4/32