10/12/2019 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly but the RTC which shall have the power to hear, try and decide this case.[29] (emphasis supplied) Indeed, non-ICCs/IPs cannot be subjected to the 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 rights of non-ICCs/IPs which should be brought before the courts of general jurisdiction within the legal bounds of rights and remedies.[30] Plainly, contrary to the court a quo's conclusion, this case cannot be subjected to the NCIP's jurisdiction as respondents are clearly non-ICCs/IPs. Second. What determines the jurisdiction of the court is the nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint. The averments therein and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted.[31] As can be gleaned from the aforecited allegations in the Complaint, the case at bar is not an action for the claim of ownership, much less, an application for the issuance of CALTs/CADTs, contrary to the court a quo's findings. In fact, petitioners categorically stated in the said Complaint that their Petition for the Identification, Delineation and Recognition of Ancestral Claim and Issuance of CALTs is already pending before the NCIP.[32] Ultimately, petitioners' cause of action is grounded upon the alleged earthmoving activities and operations of the respondents within petitioners' ancestral land, which violated and continue to violate petitioners' environmental rights under the IPRA and PD 1586 as the said activities were averred to have grave and/or irreparable danger to the environment, life, and property. Clearly, such cause of action is within the jurisdiction of the RTC, sitting as a special environmental court, pursuant to AO No. 232008 in relation to BP 129 and A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC. Whether or not petitioners are entitled to their claim is irrelevant in the preliminary issue of jurisdiction. Again, once jurisdiction is vested by the allegations in the complaint, it remains vested regardless of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.[33] Third. The court a quo erred in finding that the petitioners have no legal personality to file the complaint. It is noteworthy that petitioners supported their allegations with pertinent documents such as the report and recommendation[34] of the NCIP on petitioners' Petition for the Identification, Delineation and Recognition of Ancestral Claim and Issuance of CALTs pending before the said Commission. In the said document, the NCIP concluded that, among others, the petitioners have established themselves as the heirs of Tunged and that the subject land was proven to be part of the vast tract of land that Tunged and his successors possessed and occupied.[35] Hence, petitioners' averments in their Complaint taken together with such supporting documents are sufficient to establish petitioners' locus standi in instituting this action, as well as to bring petitioners' case within the purview of the court a quo's jurisdiction as conferred by the law. Fourth. At any rate, assuming arguendo that the case is not within the jurisdiction of elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63937 6/10