04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Petitioners next assail the weight to be given to respondent's muniments of ownership, such as the tax declarations and the survey plan. They insist that these are not indubitable proofs of respondent's ownership over the subject property given that there are other claimants to the land (who are not parties to this case) who also possess a survey plan over the subject property.[47] Petitioners then assert their superior right to the property as the present possessors thereof. They cite pertinent provisions of the New Civil Code which presume good faith possession on the part of the possessor and puts the burden on the plaintiff in an action to recover to prove her superior title.[48] Petitioners next assert that they have a right to the subject property by the operation of acquisitive prescription. They posit that they have been in possession of a public land publicly, peacefully, exclusively and in the concept of owners for more than 30 years. Respondent's assertion that petitioners are merely possessors by tolerance is unsubstantiated.[49] Petitioners also maintain that the reivindicatory action should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in light of the enactment of the IPRA, which gives original and exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving ancestral lands and domains to the NCIP.[50] They assert that the customary laws of the Ibaloi tribe of the Benguet Province should be applied to their dispute as mandated by Section 65, Chapter IX of RA 8371, which states: "When disputes involve ICCs/IPs,[51] customary laws and practices shall be used to resolve the dispute." In the alternative that jurisdiction over an accion reivindicatoria is held to be vested in the trial court, the petitioners insist that the courts should dismiss the reivindicatory action on the ground of litis pendentia.[52] They likewise argue that NCIP has primary jurisdiction over ancestral lands, hence, the courts should not interfere "when the dispute demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring special knowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal x x x In cases where the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is clearly applicable, the court cannot arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy, the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence."[53] The courts should stand aside in order to prevent the possibility of creating conflicting decisions.[54] Respondent's arguments Respondent opines that the appellate court did not commit any reversible error in affirming the trial court's decision. The present petition is a mere dilatory tactic to frustrate the speedy administration of justice.[55] Respondent also asserts that questions of fact are prohibited in a Rule 45 petition. [56] Thus, the appreciation and consideration of the factual issues are no longer reviewable.[57] The issue of lack of jurisdiction is raised for the first time in the petition before this Court. It was never raised before the trial court or the CA. Thus, respondent insists elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/54595 7/17