G.R. No. 145838. July 20, 2001.
NICASIO I. ALCANTARA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON THE SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS, SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES ANTONIO CERILLES, THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ROLANDO PAGLANGAN, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

In 1993, petitioner Nicasio Alcantara was granted Forest Land Grazing Lease Agreement No. 542 (FLGLA No. 542) by the DENR, leasing 923 hectares of public forest land in General Santos City for grazing for 25 years. As early as 1990, private respondent Rolando Paglangan and others filed a letter-complaint with the Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP) seeking the cancellation of FLGLA No. 542 and reversion of the land to the B’laan and Maguindanaoan tribes (docketed as COSLAP Case No. 98-052). Petitioner filed an Answer questioning COSLAP’s jurisdiction, arguing the dispute involved ancestral land claims falling under DENR’s jurisdiction. Despite his objection, COSLAP continued hearings. Petitioner alleged he was not notified of nor given opportunity to participate in field interviews and ocular inspections. On August 3, 1998, COSLAP issued a Decision ordering the cancellation of FLGLA No. 542. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition and denied his motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition. Intervenors (Heirs of Datu Abdul S. Pendatun, Heirs of Sabal Mula, and Gawan Clan) also claimed the land as part of their ancestral domain.

ISSUE

Whether the COSLAP had jurisdiction over the dispute involving the cancellation of FLGLA No. 542 and the claim over the land as ancestral land.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that petitioner was estopped from questioning COSLAP’s jurisdiction because he actively participated in the proceedings before it by filing an Answer, a Motion for Reconsideration, and a Supplement to the Motion for Reconsideration. The Court noted he only questioned jurisdiction after his appeal period had lapsed. Furthermore, under Executive Order No. 561 (then prevailing law), COSLAP was empowered under Section 3(2)(a) to assume jurisdiction over land disputes between occupants/squatters and pasture lease agreement holders, which applied to this case. The Court also upheld the appellate court’s factual finding, based on records, that the land was occupied since time immemorial by the B’laan indigenous cultural community and that FLGLA No. 542 violated Presidential Decree No. 410, which declares such occupied unappropriated agricultural lands as part of ancestral lands. The Court found no reversible error in the Court of Appeals’ decision.