When Customary Law Meets Final Judgments: IPRA Jurisdiction and the Limits of Mandamus

The Supreme Court recently settled an important question about the intersection of indigenous peoples' rights and the finality of court judgments. In Spouses Sending v. Co Uy (G.R. No. 271354, February 19, 2026), the Court dismissed a petition for mandamus filed by spouses claiming membership in an indigenous cultural community (ICC). The spouses sought to stop the execution of an unlawful detainer judgment against them, arguing that customary laws should govern their dispute. The ruling clarifies when the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) has jurisdiction and why a writ of mandamus cannot be used to reverse a final judgment.

The Facts of the Case

The case began in 2014 when Kristoffer Co Uy filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Spouses Elvin and Jocelyn Sending. Co Uy claimed he owned the property in Liloan and Consolacion, Cebu, and that the spouses occupied it only by his tolerance. After they refused to vacate despite demand, he sued.

The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) ruled in Co Uy's favor, ordering the spouses to vacate. The Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals both affirmed, with modifications only to the damages awarded. The Court of Appeals decision became final and executory in November 2021.

It was only during execution proceedings in 2023 that the spouses first claimed to be members of the Lumad KKK-Alimaong Higaonon Tribe. They argued that under the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA), customary laws should resolve the dispute, and the MCTC lacked jurisdiction. They also filed a petition for mandamus directly with the Supreme Court.

The Issue

The Court addressed whether a writ of mandamus could compel the judge to resolve the jurisdiction motion in the spouses' favor and reverse the final judgment in the ejectment case.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition on several grounds.

First, the spouses violated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. While the Supreme Court shares original jurisdiction over mandamus petitions with lower courts, direct recourse is discouraged. The spouses failed to show exceptional circumstances justifying a direct filing.

Second, mandamus was the wrong remedy. The spouses asked the Court to compel the judge to grant their motion and reverse the 2016 decision. But mandamus only compels the performance of a ministerial duty—one that is clear and definite, requiring no exercise of discretion. Resolving motions, interpreting laws, and determining jurisdiction are inherently discretionary acts. While mandamus can compel a judge to act on a pending motion, it cannot direct how the judge should rule. Since the MCTC had already resolved the motion against the spouses, the proper remedy would have been certiorari, not mandamus.

Third, the NCIP did not have jurisdiction over the dispute. The Court applied its ruling in Unduran v. Aberasturi: under the IPRA, the NCIP only has jurisdiction over disputes between parties belonging to the same ICC. Here, Co Uy was not a member of the spouses' alleged tribe. Subjecting a non-member to customary laws would violate fair play and due process. The dispute therefore properly belonged in the regular courts.

Fourth, the spouses' claim of indigenous status was dubious. The Court noted that the spouses never raised their alleged ICC membership during the barangay conciliation or the years of litigation—only after the judgment became final. The NCIP had even issued an advisory stating that the Lumad KKK-Alimaong Higaonon Tribe was not among the ICCs it recognized. The Court described the invocation of indigenous status as "a mere subterfuge designed to evade the execution of the final judgment."

Practical Takeaways

• The NCIP's jurisdiction under IPRA is limited. It applies only when both parties to a dispute belong to the same ICC. If one party is a non-ICC member, the regular courts retain jurisdiction.

• Customary laws do not automatically displace court proceedings. While the IPRA states that customary laws shall apply to disputes involving ICCs/IPs, this must be read with the provisions defining the NCIP's jurisdiction and its limits.

• A bare claim of indigenous status is not enough. Parties must substantiate their membership with facts showing the ICC's customs, political structures, and institutions. An NCIP advisory that a tribe is not recognized can be fatal to such a claim.

• Mandamus cannot reverse a final judgment. The writ compels ministerial action only. If a judge has already ruled against a party, the remedy is certiorari, not mandamus—and even then, only on grounds of grave abuse of discretion.

• Final judgments are rarely disturbed. Raising new defenses after a judgment becomes final and executory, especially ones that could have been raised earlier, will generally be viewed as an attempt to delay execution rather than a legitimate claim.

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