G.R. No. 222611 . November 15, 2021
ARNOLFO A. DACO, PETITIONER, VS. RUBEN E. CABAJAR, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Respondent Ruben E. Cabajar, a Tagbanua and president of the Panlaitan San Isidro Cultural Minorities Development Association (PASICMIDA), filed a complaint before the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) against petitioner Arnolfo A. Daco, also a Tagbanua, for unlawful intrusion into Isla Malajem (Black Island). Cabajar, authorized by the Tagbanua Council of Elders, alleged that the island is part of their ancestral domain claim pending a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) application and that an “Assumption Over Ancestral Domain” had been issued in their favor. He claimed that on October 12, 2012, Daco, accompanied by barangay tanods, forcibly entered Isla Malajem, constructed a nipa hut despite protests, and barred the Tagbanuas from accessing the island, harming their livelihood of gathering edible bird nests. Daco claimed ownership through tax declarations and payment to the municipal government. The NCIP Regional Hearing Office ruled it had jurisdiction, declared Isla Malajem part of the Tagbanua ancestral domain based on native title, permanently enjoined Daco from the area, and awarded damages to Cabajar. Daco appealed to the Court of Appeals via Rule 43, but his petition was dismissed for multiple procedural infirmities, including non-payment of docket fees, incomplete party names, lack of a Special Power of Attorney, defective affidavit of service, and failure to attach required documents. His motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed Daco’s appeal based on procedural grounds.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Daco’s petition before the Court of Appeals suffered from fatal procedural defects warranting dismissal under Section 7, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The defects included non-payment of docket fees, failure to state the full names of all parties, lack of authority to sign for co-petitioners, improper service, a notarized affidavit of service without competent evidence of identity, outdated counsel details, and non-attachment of necessary documents. The Court emphasized that rules of procedure are essential for orderly litigation and must be strictly followed. While it acknowledged concurrent jurisdiction between ordinary courts and the NCIP on some matters under the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act, it noted the NCIP’s primary role and expertise in resolving ancestral domain disputes among indigenous community members. The Court found no compelling reason to relax the procedural rules in this case, as Daco’s non-compliance was not excusable. Accordingly, the Petition for Review on Certiorari was denied, and the Court of Appeals’ Resolutions were affirmed.