When IPRA Customary Law Claims Collide with Final Judgments: Lessons from Spouses Sending v. Co Uy

The Supreme Court recently dismissed a petition for mandamus filed by spouses who invoked their alleged status as members of an indigenous cultural community (ICC) to stop the execution of a final unlawful detainer judgment against them. The case of Spouses Sending v. Co Uy (G.R. No. 271354, February 19, 2026) clarifies the limits of customary law claims under the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) and reinforces the doctrine of immutability of final judgments.

The Facts of the Case

Kristoffer Co Uy filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Spouses Elvin and Jocelyn Sending in 2014 before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Liloan-Compostela, Cebu. Co Uy claimed he owned the subject property and that the spouses occupied it only by his tolerance. The MCTC ruled in Co Uy's favor, and this decision was affirmed on appeal, with modifications, by both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals. The CA decision became final and executory on November 11, 2021.

During execution proceedings, the spouses raised a new argument for the first time: they claimed to be members of the Lumad KKK-Alimaong Higaonon Tribe and asserted that under the IPRA, customary laws should govern the dispute. They asked the MCTC to suspend execution and refer the matter to tribal authorities. The MCTC denied their motions, citing the finality of the judgment.

The Issue Before the Supreme Court

The spouses filed a petition for mandamus directly with the Supreme Court, seeking to compel the MCTC judge to resolve their motion in their favor, to reverse the 2016 decision, and to enjoin prosecutors from prosecuting cases involving ICC members.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition on several grounds.

First, the Court noted that the spouses violated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. While the Supreme Court has concurrent jurisdiction with lower courts over petitions for mandamus, litigants must first seek relief from the appropriate lower courts. The spouses failed to provide any compelling reason for their direct recourse to the Court.

Second, the Court held that mandamus was not the proper remedy. Mandamus lies only to compel the performance of a ministerial duty—a duty that is clear and definite and does not involve the exercise of discretion. Resolving motions, interpreting laws, and determining jurisdiction are inherently discretionary acts.

The Court explained that while mandamus may compel a judge to resolve a pending motion, it cannot direct how the judge should rule. Here, the MCTC had already resolved the spouses' motion against them. The proper remedy would have been a petition for certiorari, not mandamus.

The IPRA Jurisdiction Question

The Court also clarified an important point about IPRA jurisdiction. Under the IPRA, the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) has jurisdiction over disputes involving ICCs/IPs only when the parties belong to the same ICC/IP. This is because customary laws are specific to particular communities, and subjecting a non-member to another community's customary laws would violate fair play and due process.

In this case, nothing showed that Co Uy belonged to the same tribe as the spouses. Therefore, jurisdiction properly remained with the regular courts.

The Court also noted that the spouses' claim of indigenous status was dubious. They never raised this claim during the barangay conciliation or the years of litigation—only during execution proceedings. Moreover, the NCIP had issued an advisory stating that the Lumad KKK-Alimaong Higaonon Tribe was not among the ICCs duly validated and recognized by the NCIP.

Practical Takeaways

• Belated IPRA claims cannot defeat final judgments. Parties cannot raise their alleged status as indigenous peoples for the first time during execution proceedings to evade a final judgment. The Court viewed such conduct as a subterfuge designed to delay justice.

• NCIP jurisdiction is limited to disputes between parties of the same ICC/IP. If one party is not a member of the same indigenous community, the regular courts retain jurisdiction over the dispute.

• Mandamus cannot compel a judge to rule in a particular way. The writ may compel a judge to resolve a pending motion, but it cannot direct the outcome. If a motion has already been resolved against a party, the proper remedy is certiorari.

• Observe the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Petitions for extraordinary writs should generally be filed with the appropriate lower courts first. Direct recourse to the Supreme Court requires exceptional circumstances.

• Membership in an ICC must be substantiated. A bare allegation of indigenous status is insufficient. Claimants must present evidence of their community's customs, political structures, and institutions.

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