04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly famine and hunger being experience[d] at present by the Lumads. [19] In addition, the COSLAP made the following factual findings: a) The subject land is the ancestral domain of the complainant indigenous people, whose possession was merely interrupted by the forcible and violent takeover of outside settlers. [20] b) FLGLA No. 542 was issued by the DENR without giving due process to the indigenous communities as oppositors and in violation of existing laws such as Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 410 and the Constitution.[21] The COSLAP maintained that it had jurisdiction over the case by virtue of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 561, the law creating the COSLAP, which provides: Sec. 3. Powers and Functions. - The Commission shall have the following powers and functions: xxxx 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 concessioners; (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.[22] Disagreeing with the ruling of COSLAP, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision, which COSLAP denied. Petitioner then filed before the CA a petition[23] for certiorari under Rule 65 to question the decision of the COSLAP. The CA, in its Decision dated June 22, 2000, affirmed in toto the decision of the COSLAP.[24] Aggrieved, petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Court, docketed as G.R. No. 145838. The Court, in its Decision dated July 20, 2001, upheld the CA and the COSLAP, holding that a) COSLAP had jurisdiction to decide the case; b) FLGLA No. 542 was issued in violation of the law, and; c) the 923 hectares covered by FLGLA No. 542 were ancestral land of the private respondents.[25] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/46133 3/15