G.R. No. 162059 - Serana vs. Sandiganbayan

Case Summary (G.R. No. 162059)

Factual Background

The petitioner held FLGLA No. 542 over nine hundred twenty-three (923) hectares of public forest land, located in General Santos City. He asserted that the agreement had been subsisting since 1983 and that it was renewed in 1993 for another 25 years, or until December 31, 2018. He was not an original claimant in the indigenous dispute; he was described as the son of a settler, and he previously held a pasture permit that later became FLGLA No. 542.

Private respondents, representing the B’laan and Maguindanao communities, claimed that the land was ancestral and that indigenous predecessors had been cultivating, possessing, and occupying the area since time immemorial. They alleged that Christian settlers entered the area only after World War II, and that violent friction followed, culminating in indigenous loss of physical control over much of the land. The intervenors further claimed that the land seizure involved petitioner’s predecessor, Conrado Alcantara.

COSLAP Complaint and the Decision Ordering Cancellation

On April 10, 1990, private respondents filed a complaint before COSLAP seeking (a) the cancellation of FLGLA No. 542 and (b) the reversion of the land to the indigenous communities. Petitioner filed an answer questioning COSLAP’s authority and argued that the DENR Secretary should have jurisdiction over the administration and disposal of public lands. He also sought suspension of COSLAP proceedings, asserting that the DENR was hearing a similar controversy.

In 1993, despite the pendency of the COSLAP case, petitioner renewed FLGLA No. 542. On August 3, 1998, COSLAP ruled in favor of the complainants. It recommended to the Secretary of DENR the cancellation of the renewed FLGLA and recommended segregation of three hundred (300) hectares from the nine hundred twenty-three (923) hectares). COSLAP also recommended that the entire nine hundred twenty-three (923) hectares be declared ancestral land of the B’laan. It further directed that after cancellation, the petitioners be placed in possession to cultivate crops and address hunger and famine among the Lumads.

COSLAP’s factual findings included that the subject land was ancestral domain whose possession was interrupted by a forcible and violent takeover by outside settlers. It also found that FLGLA No. 542 had been issued without due process to the indigenous communities and in violation of existing laws, expressly citing P.D. No. 410 and the Constitution. COSLAP held it had jurisdiction based on E.O. No. 561, which allows COSLAP, in critical and explosive land disputes, to assume jurisdiction over specified controversies, including those between occupants/squatters and pasture lease holders or public land claimants.

Petitioner’s Attempts at Judicial Review and the Final Supreme Court Ruling

Petitioner sought reconsideration before COSLAP, which was denied. He then filed a petition before the CA for certiorari under Rule 65, questioning the COSLAP decision. The CA affirmed COSLAP in a Decision dated June 22, 2000.

Petitioner then filed a petition before the Supreme Court, docketed as G.R. No. 145838. In a Decision dated July 20, 2001, the Court upheld the CA and COSLAP. It ruled that COSLAP had jurisdiction, that FLGLA No. 542 was issued in violation of law, and that the nine hundred twenty-three (923) hectares covered by FLGLA No. 542 were ancestral land of the private respondents.

After the Supreme Court decision became final, private respondents moved for execution of COSLAP’s decision. Petitioner opposed the motion.

Execution, DENR Cancellation, and the Subsequent Orders to Vacate

On July 29, 2002, COSLAP issued a writ of execution directing the DENR Secretary to implement the August 3, 1998 decision as affirmed by the Supreme Court. The DENR Secretary ordered a review and investigation before canceling the lease. A regional investigation followed, and petitioner’s representative participated.

The investigation report dated February 13, 2002 found violations by the petitioner, including failure to establish a food production area, failure to undertake forage improvement, failure to pay rentals/user’s fee/government share in full and on time, and non-submission or failure to present the required revised grazing management plan for subsequent years. The report also observed an excess of cattle stock allegedly derived from an adjacent ranch, and it noted the presence of squatters inside the leased area. It further stated that FLGLA No. 542 exceeded the limit for individual holders and that a portion (478.08 hectares) was part of another matter reverting it to forest land, while noting that no forestry administrative order was issued.

On August 15, 2002, the DENR Secretary canceled FLGLA No. 542 and subjected the area under DENR authority pending final distribution to the concerned communities through NCIP or COSLAP. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on November 21, 2002. The DENR then instructed implementation of COSLAP’s recommendations and issuance of survey authority. On November 26, 2002, the CENRO notified petitioner to vacate and remove improvements, with the advice amended to require immediate vacating. On November 27, 2002, the CENRO issued an Installation Order directing immediate installation and occupation by the private respondents’ indigenous communities.

Petition Before the Court of Appeals and the Ground of Finality

On December 3, 2002, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the CA, docketed as CA G.R. SP No. 74166, praying for annulment and setting aside of multiple DENR and CENRO issuances, including the cancellation order, the denial of reconsideration, memoranda implementing COSLAP’s recommendations, the letters requiring vacating, and the Installation Order.

On September 24, 2003, the CA dismissed the petition. It held that petitioner’s arguments were squarely addressed in G.R. No. 145838, which had long become final and executory, and that the petition was barred because both proceedings involved the same parties, subject matter, and cause of action.

Issues Raised in the Rule 45 Petition

In the present Rule 45 petition, petitioner argued, first, that he had residual rights allowing continued enjoyment of the land until expiration of FLGLA No. 542 on December 31, 2018, grounded on his interpretation of Section 56 of the IPRA. Second, he claimed that the DENR officials committed grave abuse of discretion in implementing the COSLAP decision that had been upheld in the prior Supreme Court case.

The Court’s Ruling: Denial of the Petition

The Court denied the petition. It held that petitioner could not remain on the subject land until the end of the FLGLA term based on alleged residual rights. It also found no grave abuse of discretion by the DENR officials in canceling the FLGLA and ordering petitioner to vacate.

The Court affirmed the CA’s Decision dated September 24, 2003, and granted double costs against petitioner.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court addressed petitioner’s reliance on IPRA, specifically Section 56, which recognizes and respects property rights within ancestral domains already existing and/or vested upon effectivity of the Act. The Court held that the dispute started in 1990, before IPRA’s enactment in 1997, and even before the renewal of FLGLA in 1993. Thus, the controversy was not governed by IPRA, and IPRA did not cure the legal defects in FLGLA No. 542, because those defects were already the subject of controversy at the time of IPRA’s passage.

The Court rejected petitioner’s theory that the right of indigenous communities to recover ancestral land arose only by reason of IPRA. It emphasized that before IPRA, the rights of ICCs/IPs to recover ancestral land were governed by P.D. No. 410 and E.O. No. 561 (COSLAP’s creation and mandate). The Court stated that any general lack of recognition resulted not from supposed inadequacy of those laws, but from government indifference and lack of implementation.

More importantly, the Court held that in G.R. No. 145838, it had already declared FLGLA No. 542 illegal and had upheld COSLAP’s recommendation of cancellation. It explained that acts executed against the law are void, and administrative or executive acts contrary to law or the Constitution are invalid. Since FLGLA No. 542 was illegally issued, petitioner had no right arising from that illegal grant. The Court reasoned that the DENR’s cancellation merely conformed with the findings already declared final by the Court.

The Court further considered the procedural posture of petitioner’s filing and concluded that the petition constituted forum-shopping and was barred by principles of res judicata. It reiterated the hallmarks of forum-shopping: identity of parties or interests, identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, and identity such that a judgment in the other case would amount to res judicata. It held that the Supreme Court decision in G.R. No. 145838 was res judicata in the present case because of shared parties, subject matter, and cause of action.

The Court also invoked res judicata’s two concepts—bar by prior judgment and conclusiveness of judgment. Under the first concept, the Court held that the former final judgment involved the same parties, the same subject matter, and the same cause of action. Under the second concept, it held that facts and issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit could not be raised again between the same parties, even if the latter suit involved a different claim or cause of action. It reasoned that, once FLGLA No. 542 had been finally declared illegal and cancellation upheld, petitioner could no longer deny the legality of DENR’s action in ordering vacating as implementation of COSLAP’s decision.

On petitioner’s alternative theory of grave abuse of discretion in implementation, the Court found none. It characterized FLGLA as a mere license or privilege granted by the State o

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 162059)

Petitioner Nicasio I. Alcantara sought reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA) decisions dated September 24, 2003 and January 23, 2004 that affirmed the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) cancellation of Forest Land Grazing Lease Agreement (FLGLA) No. 542, ordered his vacation of the subject land, and directed installation of the private respondents’ indigenous communities in the area.
The petition before the Supreme Court was filed as a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
The private respondents were Heirs of Datu Abdul B. Pendatun and the Heirs of the Sabal Mula Gawan Clan, represented by their respective representatives, who also intervened to protect their claimed indigenous ancestral rights.
The Court treated the dispute as one already litigated to finality in a prior case involving Alcantara v. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP), G.R. No. 145838, and evaluated whether the DENR implementation and petitioner’s renewed claims were barred by res judicata and constituted forum-shopping.

Key Land, Parties, and Rights

Petitioner was a lessee under FLGLA No. 542 for nine hundred twenty-three (923) hectares of public forest land located in the vicinity of Sitio Lanton, Barrio Apopong, General Santos City.
The subject land was claimed by the indigenous B’laan and Maguindanao peoples as their ancestral land, allegedly cultivated, possessed, and occupied since time immemorial.
The private respondents asserted that Christian settlers started occupying the area only after World War II, leading to violent friction and loss of control by the indigenous people over much of the land.
The private respondents asserted that petitioner’s predecessor, Conrado Alcantara, participated in the forcible takeover of land, and that an attempt in 1962 by tribal leaders to re-take the land failed and resulted in the killing of two tribal leaders.
Petitioner claimed that FLGLA No. 542 had subsisted since 1983, and he participated in proceedings while denying COSLAP’s authority over the dispute.

Antecedent Proceedings at COSLAP

The private respondents, represented as claimants for the B’laan and Maguindanao tribes, filed a complaint before COSLAP on April 10, 1990, seeking cancellation of FLGLA No. 542 and reversion of the land to the indigenous communities.
Petitioner challenged COSLAP’s authority and asserted that the Secretary of the DENR had jurisdiction to administer and dispose of public lands.
Petitioner contended that COSLAP should suspend the hearing because DENR was allegedly hearing a similar controversy.
Despite pendency of the COSLAP case, petitioner renewed FLGLA No. 542 in 1993 for another 25 years, expiring on December 31, 2018.
On August 3, 1998, COSLAP rendered its decision recommending cancellation of petitioner’s renewed FLGLA and recommending segregation and declaration of the area as ancestral land, with recommendations aimed at placing the indigenous communities in possession after cancellation.
COSLAP’s factual findings included that possession by the indigenous complainants was interrupted only by forcible and violent takeover by outside settlers and that FLGLA No. 542 was issued without due process to the indigenous communities and in violation of laws including P.D. No. 410 and the Constitution.
COSLAP grounded its jurisdiction on E.O. No. 561, which empowered COSLAP to assume and resolve certain land problems of grave urgency and magnitude, including disputes involving occupants/squatters and pasture lease agreement holders and public land claimants.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, which COSLAP denied, after which petitioner filed a Rule 65 petition before the CA questioning COSLAP’s decision.

Prior Supreme Court Finality

The CA affirmed COSLAP’s decision on June 22, 2000, leading petitioner to file a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court docketed as G.R. No. 145838.
In its Decision dated July 20, 2001, the Supreme Court upheld the CA and COSLAP, ruling that COSLAP had jurisdiction; that FLGLA No. 542 was issued in violation of law; and that the 923 hectares were ancestral land of the private respondents.
After finality of the Supreme Court’s decision, the private respondents filed a motion for execution of COSLAP’s decision.
On July 29, 2002, COSLAP issued a writ of execution ordering the Secretary of the DENR to implement COSLAP’s August 3, 1998 decision as affirmed by the Supreme Court.

DENR Cancellation and Implementation Steps

Upon receipt of the writ of execution, DENR Secretary Heherson Alvarez ordered a review and investigation before cancellation, instructing DENR Region XII to conduct the investigation of FLGLA No. 542.
During the investigation, petitioner participated through a representative.
After the investigation, DENR issued findings that petitioner violated terms of the FLGLA, including failure to establish a food production area, failure to undertake forage improvement, failure to pay full or on time annual rental/user’s fee/government share, and failure to present an updated grazing management plan.
DENR’s investigation report also noted the alleged presence of excess cattle stock and the presence of squatters within the leased area, as well as irregularities related to the area size and classification changes allegedly involving reverting portions to forest land without the issuance of a forestry administrative order.
On August 15, 2002, Secretary Alvarez cancelled FLGLA No. 542 and subjected the area under DENR’s authority to pending final distribution to the indigenous communities by the NCIP or COSLAP.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, which Secretary Alvarez den