Alcantara v COSLAP, DENR and Paglangan

Alcantara v COSLAP, DENR and Paglangan

Case Name:

2001

Nicasio Alcantara vs Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP), Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and Rolando Paglangan as private respondent

Citation:

G.R. No. 145838. July 20, 2001

Procedural History: This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming the decision of COSLAP and denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

Facts: In 1993, petitioner was granted the lease of 923 hectares of public forest land in Sitio Lanton, General Santos City through Forest Land Grazing Lease Agreement No. 542 (FLGLA No. 542) for 25 years. Before the lease was granted, private respondent Paglangan along with Sabel Esmael and Lasid Acop filed a letter of complaint with COSLAP to cancel FLGLA No. 542. Petitioner questioned COSLAP’s jurisdiction to administer and dispose of public lands. COSLAP went on with the hearing and petitioner alleged that he was not given the opportunity to be present and participate in the field investigations conducted. On August 3, 1998 COSLAP cancelled FLGLA No. 542 and petitioner appealed to CA for certiorari. CA dismissed the petition for certiorari and subsequent motion for reconsideration. Based on the records, the land area being claimed by private respondents belongs

Legal Research

Page 1

Alcantara v COSLAP, DENR and Paglangan

2001

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.

Issue: 1) Whether or not CA erred in ruling that petitioner has recognized COSLAP’s jurisdiction over the case by participating actively in the proceedings. 2) Whether or not COSLAP has jurisdiction over the case.

Ratio Decidendi: 1) Active participation of a respondent in the case pending against him before a court or a quasi-judicial body is tantamount to recognizing its jurisdiction and therefore cannot question it later after the decision. 2) COSLAP has jurisdiction to resolve land problems or disputes which are critical and explosive in nature, for instance, between occupants and lease agreement holders. 3) It was likewise declared by the appellate court that FLGLA No. 542 granted to petitioner violated Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 410[13] 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.

Holding:

Legal Research

Petition is denied.

Page 2