G.R. No. 161881 - Alcantara vs. Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Petitioner, Nicasio I. Alcantara, held Forest Land Grazing Lease Agreement (FLGLA) No. 542 granted by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) for 923 hectares of public forest land in Sitio Lanton, Barrio Apopong, General Santos City.
Respondents include the DENR Secretary Elisea G. Gozun, regional and community officials, and private respondents representing indigenous groups composed of B'laan and Maguindanao tribes. Intervenors include heirs of Datu Abdul B. Pendatun and Sabal Mula Gawan Clan, represented by tribal chiefs.

The indigenous B'laan and Maguindanao communities claimed the subject land as their ancestral domain, having continuously cultivated and occupied it since time immemorial.
Christian settlers, including petitioner’s forebears, only began occupying the area after World War II, resulting in conflicts and displacement of indigenous peoples.
Petitioner’s predecessor forcibly seized the land; attempted indigenous efforts to retake the land in 1962 failed and led to the death of two tribal leaders.

Petitioner’s pasture permit converted to FLGLA No. 542 in 1983, renewed for 25 years in 1993, despite opposition and pending complaints.
On April 10, 1990, private respondents representing the indigenous communities filed a complaint before the Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP) to cancel FLGLA No. 542 and revert the land to indigenous ownership.
COSLAP, under E.O. No. 561, assumed jurisdiction over this land dispute, which involved critical and explosive social tension.
The 1998 COSLAP decision favored the complainants, recommending: cancellation of FLGLA No. 542; segregation and reversion of 300 hectares; declaration of the entire 923 hectares as ancestral land; and installation of indigenous occupants.
COSLAP found that the lease was issued without due process and violated existing laws such as P.D. No. 410 and the Constitution.
Petitioner challenged COSLAP’s jurisdiction and decision, filing motions for reconsideration and later petitions for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA).
CA affirmed COSLAP’s decision in 2000. The Supreme Court upheld CA and COSLAP rulings in G.R. No. 145838 in 2001, declaring FLGLA No. 542 illegal and confirming the indigenous ancestral rights over the land.

After finality of the Supreme Court ruling, private respondents moved for execution of COSLAP’s decision; petitioner opposed.
DENR Secretary Heherson Alvarez ordered a review and investigation on FLGLA No. 542 in 2001.
The DENR investigation found petitioner in violation of lease terms and regulations, including failure to fulfill grazing and production requirements, non-payment or partial payment of fees, expired management plans, overstocking of cattle, presence of squatters, and exceeding the constitutional area limit of 500 hectares for individual holders.
On August 15, 2002, DENR Secretary Alvarez cancelled FLGLA No. 542 and placed the area under DENR’s authority pending final distribution to indigenous communities by the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) or COSLAP.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the cancellation was denied in November 2002.
DENR officials issued orders for petitioner to immediately vacate the land and authorized installation of the indigenous communities.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the CA challenging these orders, which was dismissed on grounds of res judicata and affirmed DENR’s actions and COSLAP’s decisions in September 2003.

Petitioner does not seek reopening of the cancellation of FLGLA No. 542 but rather claims “residual rights” to enjoy the land up to expiration of the lease in 2018, invoking Section 56 of the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act (IPRA).
Petitioner also alleges grave abuse of discretion by DENR officials in implementing COSLAP’s decision.

Whether petitioner may exercise “residual rights” to continue enjoyment and possession of the land under FLGLA No. 542 until its expiration on December 31, 2018, despite cancellation and judicial invalidation.

Whether respondent DENR officials committed grave abuse of discretion in implementing COSLAP’s decision cancelling FLGLA No. 542 and ordering petitioner’s eviction.