10/12/2019 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Also, petitioners' cause of action based on alleged violations of the ECC issued to the respondents in relation to the provisions of PD 1586 will not prosper as petitioners are not real parties-in interest under the contemplation of the Rules as explained in its assailed Order. Thus: WHEREFORE, the MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION dated March 3, 2017 filed by the petitioners is DENIED.[20] Hence, this petition. The Issue Was the court a quo's outright dismissal of the case proper? The Court's Ruling We answer in the negative. In precis, the RTC dismissed the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, finding that petitioners' case is grounded upon their claim of being members of the IPs and their assertion of ownership as such over their ancestral land. In ruling that it has no jurisdiction over the case, the RTC discussed the exclusive jurisdiction of the NCIP to issue CALTs/CADTs to formally recognize the rights of indigenous peoples to their ancestral lands/domains by virtue of native title. Further, the RTC ruled that even if the case is covered by A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, the same is still dismissible considering that petitioners' right over the subject property is yet to be established as can be gleaned from their prayer for the recognition of ownership rights as IPs over the subject land. We do not agree. In determining which body or court has jurisdiction in this case, Our pronouncement in the recent case of Unduran, et al. v. Aberasturi, et al.,[21] is instructive, viz: [J]urisdiction 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 plaintiffs cause of action. The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. Once vested by the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.[22] (emphasis supplied) The jurisdiction of the NCIP is stated under Section 66 of the IPRA, to wit: elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63937 3/10