04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly On September 24, 2003, the CA rendered its decision, dismissing the petition filed by petitioner Alcantara and ruling that the issues and arguments it raised had all been addressed squarely in the Supreme Court's decision in G.R. No. 145838 which upheld the COSLAP's decision and which had long become final and executory. The CA stated further that the petition was barred by the decision in that case, as both shared the same parties, the same subject matter and the same cause of action. Hence, herein petition. Petitioner alleges that when he filed the petition for certiorari before the CA below (CA G.R. SP No 74166), questioning the orders of respondents DENR officials, he "did not seek to have the cancellation of its FLGLA No. 542 reconsidered or reopened, precisely because such cancellation was already covered by a final decision of the Supreme Court." He insists that what he sought was to have a "clear determination of his residual rights after such cancellation in the context of the provisions of the IPRA Law x x x considering that the right to 'lands of the ancestral domain' arose only in view of the IPRA Law and cultural minorities had priorly no right to recover their ancestral lands."[37] Petitioner's arguments are centered on the following two main issues: Whether petitioner may continue his enjoyment of the land up to the expiration of FLGA No. 542, or December 31, 2018, based on his alleged residual rights. Whether respondents DENR officials committed grave abuse of discretion in implementing the COSLAP's decision, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court. The petition lacks merit. Petitioner may not enjoy possession and use of the land up to the expiration of FLGLA No. 542, or December 31, 2018, based on his alleged residual rights. Petitioner's claim that he has residual rights to remain on the property is based on Section 56 of the IPRA, which states: SEC. 56. Existing Property Rights Regimes. - Property rights within the ancestral domains already existing and/or vested upon effectivity of this Act, shall be recognized and respected. The contention of petitioner has no merit. As stated in the Court's decision in G.R. No. 145838,[38] the legal dispute surrounding petitioner's FLGLA No. 542 began in 1990, which was before the IPRA's passage in 1997, and even before the FLGLA was renewed in 1993. Thus, the case is not covered by IPRA, but by other laws existing at the time the COSLAP took cognizance of the case. IPRA also did not cure the legal defects and infirmities of FLGLA No. 542, which were already the subject of controversy by the time the law was passed. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/46133 6/15