Facts:

The case revolves around Nicasio I. Alcantara as the petitioner against the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) along with its officials, including Secretary Elisea G. Gozun and Regional Executive Director Musa C. Saruang, among others, serving as respondents. The legal dispute originated from actions taken by the DENR in relation to Forest Land Grazing Lease Agreement (FLGLA) No. 542, which Alcantara held over 923 hectares of public forest land in Sitio Lanton, Barrio Apopong, General Santos City. This land was claimed by the indigenous B'laan and Maguindanao people, represented by private respondents Rolando Paglangan, the heirs of Datu Abdul B. Pendatun, and the heirs of the Sabal Mula Gawan Clan, who argued that they had cultivated the land since time immemorial, with occupation by Christian settlers beginning only after World War II. Tensions arose between these indigenous groups and the settlers, resulting in physical confrontations, contributing to

...

Facts:

Background on the FLGLA and the Subject Land

• Petitioner Nicasio I. Alcantara was granted Forest Land Grazing Lease Agreement (FLGLA) No. 542 for 923 hectares of public forest land located in the vicinity of Sitio Lanton, Barrio Apopong, General Santos City.
• The lease originated from an earlier pasture permit held by petitioner’s predecessor and was converted into FLGLA No. 542, which petitioner claims has been in existence since 1983.
• The subject land is concurrently claimed as the ancestral domain of indigenous communities—the B’laan and Maguindanao peoples—who assert that they have occupied, cultivated, and possessed the land since time immemorial.
• The indigenous communities contend that Christian settlers began occupying the area only after World War II, a development which led to prolonged friction and, at times, violent disputes between the settlers and the native groups.
• Among the allegations by the indigenous groups is that petitioner’s predecessor, Conrado Alcantara, gained control of the land by force, illustrated by a violent attempt in 1962 that resulted in the killing of two indigenous leaders.

Procedural History and Initiation of Dispute

• In 1990, private respondents—representing the indigenous peoples through various tribal chiefs and heirs—filed a complaint before the Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP) seeking the cancellation of FLGLA No. 542 and the reversion of the subject land to the indigenous communities.
• The complaint emphasized that the land had been forcibly taken from the indigenous inhabitants and that the issuance of the FLGLA had been conducted in violation of existing laws, including Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 410.
• Petitioner responded by questioning COSLAP’s jurisdiction, contending that the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) should have jurisdiction over the administration and disposition of public lands, and sought the suspension of the proceedings on the ground of parallel actions before the DENR.

Administrative and Judicial Developments

• Despite the ongoing COSLAP proceedings, petitioner renewed the FLGLA in 1993 for an additional 25 years until December 31, 2018, even in the face of indigenous opposition.
• On August 3, 1998, COSLAP rendered a decision recommending:
• The cancellation of FLGLA No. 542;
• The segregation of 300 hectares for the complainants and the declaration of the entire 923 hectares as ancestral land of the B’laan; and
• Immediate possession and cultivation of the land by the indigenous peoples.
• Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the COSLAP decision was denied, and subsequent appeals to the Court of Appeals (CA) and ultimately to the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 145838 upheld the COSLAP decision, affirming that FLGLA No. 542 was illegal and that the land was indeed ancestral to the indigenous communities.

Implementation of the COSLAP Decision and DENR’s Actions

• Following the finality of the Supreme Court decision, COSLAP issued a writ of execution ordering the DENR to implement its decision.
• Prior to cancelling FLGLA No. 542, Secretary of DENR Heherson Alvarez ordered a review and investigation of the lease. The investigation, which included a petitioner’s representative, uncovered a series of violations by petitioner, including:
• Failure to develop a designated food production area and undertake forage improvement;
• Inadequate and untimely payment of annual rental or user’s fees;
• Use of an expired Grazing Management Plan with a discrepancy in cattle stock figures and observation of excess cattle allegedly from an adjacent ranch;
• Presence of squatters within the leased area and exceeding the legal limit of land allocation per individual holder.
• Based on the investigation report, on August 15, 2002, Sec. Alvarez issued an administrative order cancelling FLGLA No. 542.
• Subsequent orders and communications from DENR officials, including directives to vacate the land and an Installation Order for the indigenous communities, were issued in November 2002.

Petitioner’s Contentions in the Present Petition

• Petitioner argues that his “residual rights” entitle him to continue the exclusive use and possession of the subject land until the original expiration date of the FLGLA (December 31, 2018).
• He posits that the cancellation process, executed by the DENR officials, was conducted with grave abuse of discretion and that due process was not accorded in the implementation of the COSLAP decision.
• Petitioner emphasizes that his objective in the present petition is not to reopen the cancellation issue already resolved in G.R. No. 145838 but to obtain a “clear determination of his residual rights” under the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA).

Issue:

• Whether petitioner is entitled to continue enjoying possession and use of the subject land based on his alleged “residual rights” until the expiration of FLGLA No. 542 on December 31, 2018.

• Whether the respondent DENR officials committed grave abuse of discretion in executing the COSLAP decision by cancelling FLGLA No. 542 and ordering petitioner to vacate the subject land.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)