04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly cease to exist and normalcy and safety of the previous settlements are not possible, displaced ICCs/IPs shall enjoy security of tenure over lands to which they have been resettled: Provided, furthermore, That basic services and livelihood shall be provided to them to ensure that their needs are adequately addressed; e. Right to Regulate Entry of Migrants. - Right to regulate the entry of migrant settlers and organizations into the domains; f. Right to Safe and Clean Air and Water. - For this purpose, the ICCs/IPs shall have access to integrated systems for the management of their inland waters and air space; g. Right to Claim Parts of Reservations. - The right to claim parts of the ancestral domains which have been reserved for various purposes, except those reserved and intended for common and public welfare and service; and h. Right to Resolve Conflict. - Right to resolve land conflicts in accordance with customary laws of the area where the land is located, and only in default thereof shall the complaints be submitted to amicable settlement and to the Courts of Justice whenever necessary. (Emphasis supplied.) More significantly, the aforequoted provision provides that the right to ancestral domain carries with it the right to "stay in the territory and not to be removed therefrom." And the CADT was issued notwithstanding the existence of Presidential Proclamation No. 1578, which recognized the existence of private rights already extant at the time. Thus, although the issuance of the CADT in favor of the Tagbanua ICC to develop, control, manage, and utilize Calauit does not affect the propriety or impropriety of the execution of the Resettlement Agreements per se, the same, however, gainsays the avowed consequence of said contracts, that is, to remove and transfer the settlers from Calauit to the resettlement areas in Halsey and Burabod. Verily, in Gancho-on v. Secretary of Labor and Employment,[58] this Court emphasized that: It is a rule of universal application, almost, that courts of justice constituted to pass upon substantial rights will not consider questions in which no actual interests are involved; they decline jurisdiction of moot cases. And where the issue has become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. There is no actual substantial relief to which petitioners would be entitled and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition. (Citations omitted.) From the above pronouncement, there is no justiciable controversy anymore in the instant petition in view of the issuance of CADT. There is no longer any purpose in determining whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Decision of the RTC since any declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. Clearly, any decision of this Court on the present petition, whether it be an elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61037 14/19