04/02/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
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 1997[4] 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
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52426
2/6