04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly affirmance or a reversal of the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals, would be equivalent in effect to an affirmance or an invalidation of the challenged Decision of the RTC. But the Office of the President's issuance of a 2008 Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title in favor of the settlers, including the petitioners, negates the need to resolve the issues raised in the Complaint and Answer with Counterclaims - whether or not the petitioners may be compelled to vacate Calauit by virtue of their obligations enumerated in the Resettlement Agreements. The issuance by the respondent of CADT No. R04-BUS-0308-062 over 3,683.2324 (the entire area subject of the Resettlement Agreements) in favor of the settlers, including the petitioners, provide their occupation and/or settlement on the subject land an apparent color of authority at the very least by virtue of Republic Act No. 8371. Precisely, under the law, a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title "refers to a title formally recognizing the rights of possession and ownership of ICCs/[Indigenous Peoples (IPs)] over their ancestral domains[59] identified and delineated in accordance with [the] law."[60] Therefore, the settlers continued stay in Calauit has become a non-issue. As such, any discussion on the matter of the propriety of the Resettlement Agreements and their effects would be mere surplusage. Although the moot and academic principle admits of certain exceptions,[61] none are applicable in this case. But emphasis must be made that the disposition of the instant petition does not at all touch on the propriety or impropriety of the issuance of the CADT. Such a question is not for this Court to take on at this time as, in fact, it is not raised herein. Relative to the recent prayer of the petitioners that they be awarded individual titles of ownership over portions of Calauit as the issuance of CADT in favor of the Tagbanua ICC amounts to an affirmation and recognition of the property rights of their ancestors from whom they trace their present individual claims,[62] this Court points out that under Section 12 of Republic Act No. 8371, individual members of cultural communities, with respect to individually owned ancestral lands, the option to secure title to the same must be done in accordance with the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, or the Land Registration Act 496. In light of the foregoing, the issues invoked by the parties no longer need to be discussed. WHEREFORE, the April 24, 2002 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 46222 is SET ASIDE, and Civil Case No. 2262 Is DISMISSED, for being moot and academic. No costs. SO ORDERED. Sereno, C. J., (Chairperson), Bersamin, Perez, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur. [1] Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Court. [2] Rollo, pp. 105-119; penned by Associate Justice Mercedes Gozo-Dadole with elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61037 15/19