BY ATTY. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO

SPOUSES ELVIN SENDING (DATU GIBO) AND JOCELYN SENDING (BAE ORANGE) VS. KRISTOPPER RAHDA CO UY, ET AL., G.R. NO. 271354 (FEBRUARY 19, 2026): THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES (NCIP) HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER A DISPUTE WHEN ONE OF THE PARTIES IS NOT A NON-MEMBER OF THE INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES/INDIGENOUS PEOPLES (ICCs/IPs)

The case arose from a final and executory Unlawful Detainer case lodged by respondent Kristopper Rahda Co Uy against Spouses Elvin Sending and Jocelyn Sending over a property peculiarly located between two barangays and municipalities, in Barangays Yati and Jugan in Liloan and Consolacion, respectively, and is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. MR-13015 (T-63866) under the name of the respondent. When respondent filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution, Spouses Sending filed an Opposition and is now claiming to be members of the Indigenous Cultural Community/Indigenous Peoples of Lumad KKK-Alimaong asserting primacy of their customary laws and customary manner of resolving disputes. 

The Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Liloan-Compostela denied the Opposition of the petitioners and gave Spouses Sending a period of thirty (30) days within which to vacate and voluntarily remove all the structures built on the subject property. The said order also gave respondent Co Uy similar period to cause the resurvey of the property and report to the court the survey findings. Hence, petitioners Spouses Sending directly filed a Petition for Mandamus before the Supreme Court in an attempt to stop the implementation of the Writ of Execution and Demolition issued by the MCTC of Liloan-Compostela.

The Supreme Court held that petitioners Spouses Sending failed to establish that they met the exceptions to the doctrine of hierarchy of the courts. The Petition for Mandamus was simply filed without providing any compelling or justifying reason therefor. Also, the Court restated the requisites for a Petition for Mandamus to be granted, to wit: (1) unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station; or (2) unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled. The Supreme Court held that a petitioner in a petition for mandamus must also show that there was “no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law” that they could have availed of.

Petitioners Spouses Sending failed to establish the foregoing requirements, First, petitioners Spouses Sending failed to demonstrate that they have a clear legal right violated by respondent Co Uy. Citing the case of Unduran vs. Aberasturi, G.R. No. 181284 (October 20, 2015), the Supreme Court held that the NCIP does not have jurisdiction over disputes arising between or among parties who do not belong to the same ICC/IP, i.e., parties belonging to different ICC/IP, or where one of the parties is a non-ICC/IP. In the instant case, while petitioners Spouses Sending claim to be members of KKK-Alimaong Sugbo-anon Tribe, there is nothing in the records which will show that respondent Co Uy is also a member of the same tribe. Therefore, there is no clear legal right on the part of petitioners Spouses Sending, as alleged members of an ICC/IP, which was supposedly violated by the execution of the decision in the unlawful detainer case filed before the MCTC.

Second, there is no ministerial duty on the part of the respondents which they neglected to perform. In contrast to a discretionary act, a ministerial act is one in which an officer or tribunal performs under a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, and in obedience to a mandate of legal authority, without regard to or exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of an act done. In this case, it calls upon the trial court to pass upon matters pertaining to judicial adjudication and prosecutorial discretion, which are not ministerial functions. 

Finally, while an obiter, this nails the coffin to any attempt to exploit the legal processes anchored on being a member of a “Alimaong-Higaonon Tribe” as the Supreme Court took judicial notice that the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) issued an Advisory dated 08 August 2019, in which the public was previously notified that the Lumad KKK-Alimaong Higaonon Tribe is “NOT” one of the indigenous peoples duly validated and recognized by the NCIP. Given that its alleged membership of ICCs/IPs is doubtful at best, it cannot be the basis to set aside a final and executory judgment in the Unlawful Detainer case.