04/02/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
414 Phil. 202
FIRST DIVISION
[ 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.
DECISION
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. 53159[1] 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.
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]
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52426
1/6