Ancestral Domain Disputes Between Same Indigenous Community: NCIP Jurisdiction Explained

The Supreme Court's 2021 ruling in Daco v. Cabajar clarifies a crucial point for indigenous peoples and property lawyers alike: when a dispute over ancestral domain arises between members of the same indigenous cultural community, the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)—not the regular courts—is the proper forum. The case also reminds appellate courts that procedural technicalities should not defeat substantial justice, especially where livelihoods and ancestral rights hang in the balance.

The Facts of the Case

Arnolfo Daco and Ruben Cabajar are both members of the Tagbanua indigenous cultural community in Busuanga, Palawan. Cabajar, president of a local indigenous peoples' organization, was authorized by the Council of Elders to file a complaint with the NCIP against Daco for unauthorized intrusion into Isla Malajem, an island the Tagbanuas claim as part of their ancestral domain.

Cabajar alleged that Daco, accompanied by barangay tanods, forcibly took over the island, constructed a nipa hut despite the elders' protests, and barred the Tagbanuas from returning. The Tagbanuas relied on Isla Malajem as their primary source of edible bird's nests, or balinsasayaw. Daco countered that he had tax declarations and had paid the municipal government for the island.

The NCIP Regional Hearing Office ruled in favor of the Tagbanuas, finding that Isla Malajem formed part of their ancestral domain by virtue of native title—even without a formal Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT). Daco appealed to the Court of Appeals, but his appeal was dismissed outright for numerous procedural defects, including failure to pay docket fees and failure to attach required documents.

The Issue Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court faced three questions: (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal on procedural grounds; (2) whether the NCIP had jurisdiction over the complaint; and (3) whether Daco had a legitimate claim of ownership over Isla Malajem.

Procedural Rules Should Yield to Substantial Justice

The Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal purely on technicalities. While Rule 43 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires strict compliance with formal requirements, the Court has long recognized exceptions where:

• the case involves matters of life, liberty, honor, or property;
• special or compelling circumstances exist;
• the case has merit;
• the fault is not entirely attributable to the party;
• the appeal is not frivolous or dilatory; and
• the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced.

Here, the case involved property affecting both parties' livelihood. Daco had filed a motion for reconsideration curing all the defects, and none of the lapses prejudiced Cabajar. The Court reminded appellate courts that dismissing cases on technicalities defeats the objective of the rules: the attainment of justice.

NCIP Jurisdiction Under Section 66 of the IPRA

The Court then addressed the core jurisdictional question. Section 66 of Republic Act No. 8371, the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA), grants the NCIP jurisdiction over "all claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs," subject to two conditions:

1. The parties must have exhausted remedies under their customary laws; and
2. A certification from the Council of Elders must be issued stating that the dispute was not resolved.

Citing Unduran v. Aberasturi, the Court clarified that the NCIP's jurisdiction applies only when the dispute arises between parties belonging to the same indigenous cultural community. When one party is not an ICC/IP member, the regular courts have jurisdiction.

In Daco, both parties were Tagbanua. The first condition was met. Although no certification was presented, the Court found that the complaint fell under an exception under the NCIP's Administrative Circular No. 1, Series of 2003: the complaint sought to prevent "grave, imminent, and irreparable damage or injury" to the community. The elders had pleaded with Daco to stop construction, to no avail, and the community was being deprived of its livelihood.

Native Title Does Not Require a CADT

On the merits, the Court affirmed that the absence of a CADT does not defeat an ancestral domain claim. The Regional Hearing Office correctly held that a CADT "only constitutes formal recognition of the State of the rights of the ICCs/IPs over the ancestral domain." Native title—occupation and possession since time immemorial—already vests ownership. Tax declarations by an individual cannot overcome the community's established native title over a seashore and cave traditionally used for gathering bird's nests.

Practical Takeaways

• Same-community disputes go to the NCIP. If both parties belong to the same indigenous cultural community and the dispute involves ancestral domain rights, the NCIP has jurisdiction—not the Regional Trial Court.
• Customary law exhaustion is required, but exceptions exist. The certification from the Council of Elders may be dispensed with where urgent relief is needed to prevent grave and irreparable damage.
• A CADT is not a prerequisite for native title. Indigenous communities may assert ancestral domain rights based on occupation since time immemorial, even before formal title issuance.
• Procedural defects are not always fatal. Courts may relax procedural rules where substantial justice requires it, especially in cases involving property, livelihood, and indigenous rights.
• Tax declarations do not defeat native title. Individual tax declarations over land within an ancestral domain cannot overcome the community's collective native title.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.