Decision 11 G.R. No. 201273 ' There being no trial on the merits yet, it is improper for the Court to rule on the nine causes of action in the Complaint. NCIP does not have jurisdiction over the Republic's Complaint. As further confirmation that the RTC has jurisdiction over the case is the fact that the NCIP does not have jurisdiction over issues involving nonIndigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs)/Indigenous Peoples (IPs). The NCIP' s jurisdiction is defined in Section 66 of the IPRA: SEC. 66. Jurisdiction of the NCIP. - The NCIP, through its regional offices, shall have jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving rights ofICCs/IPs: Provided, however, That no such dispute shall be brought to the NCIP unless the parties have exhausted all remedies provided under their customary laws. For this purpose, a certification shall be issued by the Council of Elders/Leaders who participated in the attempt to settle the dispute that the same has not been resolved, which certification shall be a condition precedent to the filing of a petition with the NCIP. Interpreting this provision, the.Court held in Lim v. Gamosa 44 that the NCIP has no power and authority to decide controversies involving nonICCs/IPs even if it involves rights of ICCs/IPs, as these disputes should be brought before a court of general jurisdiction, thus: Once again, the primacy of customs and customary law sets the parameters for the NCIP' s limited and special jurisdiction and its consequent application in dispute resolution. Demonstrably, the proviso in Section 66 of the IPRA limits the jurisdiction of the NCIP to cases of claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs where both parties are ICCs/IPs because customs and customary law cannot be made to apply to non-ICCs/IPs within the parameters of the NCIP's limited and special jurisdiction. Indeed, non-ICCs/lPs cannot be subjected to this special and limited jurisdiction of the NCIP even if the dispute involves rights of ICCs/lPs since the NCIP has no power and authority to decide on a controversy involving, as well, rights of non-ICCs/IPs which may be brought before a court of general jurisdiction within the legal bounds of rightti and remedies. Even as a practical concern, non-IPs and non-members of ICCs ought to be excepted from the NCIP's competence since it cannot determine the right-duty correlative, and breach thereof, between opposing parties who are ICCs/IPs and non-ICCs/IPs, the controversy necessarily contemplating application of other laws, not only customs and customary law of the ICCs/lPs. In short, the NCIP is only vested with jurisdiction to determine the rights of ICCs/lPs based on customs and customary law in a given controversy against another ICC/IP, but not the applicable law for each and every kind of ICC/IP controversy even against an opposing non-ICC/IP. 45 (Additional emphasis and underscoring supplied) 44 45 77 4 Phil. 31 (2015). Id. at 61-62.