10/12/2019 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly different courts, they are said to have concurrent jurisdiction."[32] While courts of concurrent jurisdiction are courts of equal dignity as to matters concurrently cognizable, neither having supervisory power over process from the other,[33] the rule is that the court which first takes cognizance of an action over which it has jurisdiction and power to afford complete relief has the exclusive right to dispose of the controversy without interference from other courts of concurrent jurisdiction in which similar actions are subsequently instituted between the same parties seeking similar remedies and involving the same questions.[34] Such rule is referred to as the principle of priority or the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction. Although comity is sometimes a motive for the courts to abide by the priority principle, it is a legal duty of a court to abide by such principle to reduce the possibility of the conflicting exercise of concurrent jurisdiction, especially to reduce the possibility that a case involving the same subject matter and the same parties is simultaneously acted on in more than one court.[35] After a careful perusal of the provisions of the entire IPRA, the Court discerns nothing therein that expressly or impliedly confers concurrent jurisdiction to the NCIP and the regular courts over claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs between and among parties belonging to the same ICC/IP group. What the Court finds instead is that the NCIP's limited jurisdiction is vested under Section 66 of the IPRA, while its primary jurisdiction is bestowed under Section 52(h) and 53, in relation to Section 62 of the IPRA, and Section 54 thereof. Having discussed why the NCIP's jurisdiction under Section 66 of the IPRA is limited, but not concurrent with the regular courts, the Court will now expound on the NCIP's primary jurisdiction over claims regardless of whether the parties are non-ICCs/IPs, or members of different ICCs/IP groups, namely: (1) adverse claims and border disputes arising from the delineation of ancestral domains/lands,(2) cancellation of fraudulently issued CADTs, and (3) disputes and violations ofiCCs/IPs rights between members of the same ICC/IP. Primary jurisdiction is the power and authority vested by the Constitution or by statute upon an administrative body to act upon a matter by virtue of its specific competence. [36] Given that the provisions of the enabling statute are the yardsticks by which the Court would measure the quantum of quasi-judicial powers that an administrative agency may exercise, as defined in the enabling act of such agency,[37] it is apt to underscore the provisions of the IPRA which invest primary jurisdiction over claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IP groups to the NCIP, as the primary government agency responsible for the recognition of their ancestral domain and rights thereto:[38] 1. Section 52(h) of the IPRA anent the power of the NCIP Ancestral Domain Office (ADO) to deny application for CADTs, in relation to Section 62, regarding the power of the NCIP to hear and decide unresolved adverse claims: SECTION 52. Delineation Process. - The identification and delineation of ancestral domains shall be done in accordance with the following procedures: elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63044 9/32