Alcantara Vs Comm On Settlement of Land Prob

G.R. No.
145838
July 20, 2001
NICASIO I. ALCANTARA, petitioner,

vs.
COMMISSION ON THE SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS,
SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES ANTONIO CERILLES, THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ROLANDO
PAGLANGAN, ET AL., respondents.
---------------------------------------HEIRS OF DATU ABDUL S. PENDATUN, REP. BY DATU NASSER B.
PENDATUN, AL HAJ., HEIRS OF SABAL MULA, and GAWAN CLAN,
REP. BY TRIBAL CHIEFTAIN LORETO GAWAN, intervenors.
KAPUNAN, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision of the Court of
Appeals dated June 22, 2000 in CA-G.R. SP No. 531591 and its Resolution dated
October 16, 2000 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
The facts of the case are as follows:
Sometime in 1993, petitioner Nicasio Alcantara was granted Forest Land Grazing
Lease Agreement No. 542 (FLGLA No. 542) by the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR). Under said FLGLA, Alcantara was allowed to
lease Nine Hundred Twenty-Three (923) hectares of public forest land at Sitio
Lanton, Barrio Apopong, General Santos City for grazing purposes for a period of
twenty-five (25) years to expire on 31 December 2018.
As early as 1990, however, private respondent Rolando Paglangan together with
Esmael Sabel and Lasid Acop filed a letter-complaint with the Commission on
Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP) seeking the cancellation of FLGLA No.
542 and the reversion of the entire 923 hectares to the B'laan and Maguindanaoan
tribes. The case was docketed as COSLAP Case No. 98-052.1wphi1.nt
Petitioner filed his Answer questioning the jurisdiction of the COSLAP over the
case, since the dispute involved a claim for recovery of ancestral land. Petitioner
claimed that the case should have been filed with the DENR since it is the latter
which has jurisdiction to administer and dispose of public lands, including grazing
lands.
Notwithstanding petitioner's objection to the COSLAP's exercise of jurisdiction
over the case, said body continued the hearings thereon. Petitioner alleged that
COSLAP did not conduct formal hearings on the case, and that he was not notified
nor given the opportunity to be present and participate in the field interviews and
ocular inspections conducted by COSLAP.2
On August 3, 1998, the COSLAP issued a Decision ordering the cancellation of
FLGLA No. 542. Petitioner appealed the same to the Court of Appeals by petition
for review on certiorari.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition in its Decision dated June 22, 2000,
and also denied petitioners motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated
October 16, 2000.3
Hence, the present petition.
Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that he had earlier
recognized the jurisdiction of the COSLAP over the case. He stated further that the
appellate court should have considered that the COSLAP does not possess the
historical, genealogical and anthropological expertise to act on ancestral land
claims, and that it is the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP),
under the Indigenous People's Rights Act of 19974 which has jurisdiction over such
claims. Petitioner thus submits that the COSLAP's decision ordering the
cancellation of FLGLA No. 542 and declaring the area being claimed by private
respondent as ancestral land is void for having been issued by a body which does
not have jurisdiction over said matters.5
In his Comment, private respondent Rolando Paglangan argued that the petition
should be dismissed since the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner in the Court
of Appeals was filed out of time.6 He also contended that the COSLAP has the
power to entertain cases involving indigenous cultural communities when the

DENR or the NCIP fails or refuses to act on a complaint or grievance brought
before them.7 He alleged that the dispute between petitioner and the B'laan tribe
antedated the creation of the NCIP, hence, filing of the petition for cancellation of
the FLGLA with the COSLAP.8
On April 6, 2001, a Motion for Leave to Intervene and to File Complaint-inIntervention was filed with this Court by the Heirs of Datu Abdul S. Pendatun,
represented by Datu Nasser B. Pendatun, Al Haj; the Heirs of Sabal Mula,
represented by Hadji Latip K. Mula; and the Gawan Clan, represented by their
Tribal Chieftain Loreto Gawan.
Subsequently, on May 24, 2001, they filed an Amended Motion for Leave to
Intervene and to File Amended Complaint-in-Intervention. In their Amended
Complaint-in-Intervention, they allege that the parcels of land in dispute form part
of their ancestral lands, and that they have been in open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession under claim of ownership of the same. They stated further
that private respondent Rolando Paglangan acts only as agent of the Mula clan, and
not of the other intervenors.9
The Court finds no reason to disturb the ruling of the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals did not commit any reversible error in the assailed decision.
The Court agrees with the appellate court that petitioner is estopped from
questioning the jurisdiction of the COSLAP since he participated actively in the
proceedings before said body by filing an Answer, a Motion for Reconsideration of
the COSLAP's decision and a Supplement to Respondent's Motion for
Reconsideration. The Court also notes the appellate court's observation that
petitioner began to question the jurisdiction of the COSLAP only when he realized
that his period to appeal the COSLAP's decision had already lapsed.10 It has been
repeatedly held by this Court that the active participation of a respondent in the
case pending against him before a court or a quasi-judicial body is tantamount to a
recognition of that court's or body's recognition and a willingness to abide by the
resolution of the case and will bar said party from later on impugning the court's or
body's jurisdiction.11
Moreover, Executive Order No. 561 creating the COSLAP, the law then prevailing
when private respondents filed their complaint for cancellation of FLGLA No. 542,
provides in Section 3, paragraph 2(a) thereof that said Commission may assume
jurisdiction over land disputes involving occupants of the land in question and
pasture lease agreement holders:
Sec. 3. Powers and Functions. -- The Commission shall have the following
powers and functions:
xxx
2. Refer and follow-up for immediate action by the agency having
appropriate jurisdiction any land problem or dispute referred to the
Commission: Provided, That the Commission, may, in the following cases,
assume jurisdiction and resolve land problems or disputes which are critical
and explosive in nature considering, for instance, the large number of the
parties involved, the presence or emergence of social tension or unrest, or
other similar critical situations requiring immediate action:
(a) Between occupants/squatters and pasture lease agreement
holders or timber concessionaires;
(b) Between occupants/squatters and government reservation grantees;
(c) Between occupants/squatters and public land claimants or
applicants;
(d) Petitions for classification, release and/or subdivision of lands of
the public domain; and
(e) Other similar land problems of grave urgency and magnitude.
The Commission shall promulgate such rules of procedure as will insure
expeditious resolution and action on the above cases. The resolution, order
or decision of the Commission on any of the foregoing cases shall have the
force and effect of a regular administrative resolution, order or decision and
shall be binding upon the parties therein and upon the agency having
jurisdiction over the same. Said resolution, order or decision shall become
final and executory within thirty (30) days from its promulgation and shall
be appealable by certiorari only to the Supreme Court. (Emphasis supplied.)
The Court of Appeals also stated that based on the records, the land area being
claimed by private respondents belongs to the B'laan indigenous cultural
community since they have been in possession of, and have been occupying and
cultivating the same since time immemorial, a fact has not been disputed by
petitioner.12 It was likewise declared by the appellate court that FLGLA No. 542
granted to petitioner violated Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 41013 which
states that all unappropriated agricultural lands forming part of the public domain
are declared part of the ancestral lands of the indigenous cultural groups occupying
the same, and these lands are further declared alienable and disposable, to be
distributed exclusively among the members of the indigenous cultural group
concerned.
The Court finds no reason to depart from such finding by the appellate court, it
being a settled rule that findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are binding and
conclusive upon the Supreme Court absent any showing that such findings are not
supported by the evidence on record.14
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

Alcantara Vs Comm On Settlement of Land Prob

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alcantara Vs Comm On Settlement of Land Prob

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alcantara Vs Comm On Settlement of Land Prob

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

July 20, 2001

NICASIO I. ALCANTARA, petitioner,

power to entertain cases involving indigenous cultural communities when the

You might also like