Scribd
Upload
68 views

Case12 ALCANTARAvCOMMISSION MATOL

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from the Philippines regarding a dispute over land. Nicasio Alcantara was granted a 25-year lease over 923 hectares of public forest land for grazing purposes. However, Rolando Paglangan and others filed a complaint, seeking to cancel the lease and have the land reverted to the Blaan and Maguindanaoan tribes, claiming it as ancestral land. The Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems ruled in favor of cancelling the lease. Alcantara appealed but lost. The Supreme Court denied the final petition, agreeing the land belonged to the indigenous groups since they had occupied and used it for generations.

Uploaded by

Greghvon Matol
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
68 views

Case12 ALCANTARAvCOMMISSION MATOL

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from the Philippines regarding a dispute over land. Nicasio Alcantara was granted a 25-year lease over 923 hectares of public forest land for grazing purposes. However, Rolando Paglangan and others filed a complaint, seeking to cancel the lease and have the land reverted to the Blaan and Maguindanaoan tribes, claiming it as ancestral land. The Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems ruled in favor of cancelling the lease. Alcantara appealed but lost. The Supreme Court denied the final petition, agreeing the land belonged to the indigenous groups since they had occupied and used it for generations.

Uploaded by

Greghvon Matol
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

NICASIO I. ALCANTARA vs.

COMMISSION ON THE SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS


G.R. No. 145838 July 20, 2001

Facts:
Sometime in 1993, petitioner Nicasio Alcantara was granted Forest Land Grazing Lease
Agreement No. 542 (FLGLA No. 542) by the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR). Under said FLGLA, Alcantara was allowed to lease Nine Hundred
Twenty-Three (923) hectares of public forest land at Sitio Lanton, Barrio Apopong, General
Santos City for grazing purposes for a period of twenty-five (25) years to expire on 31
December 2018.

As early as 1990, however, private respondent Rolando Paglangan together with Esmael Sabel
and Lasid Acop filed a letter-complaint with the Commission on Settlement of Land Problems
(COSLAP) seeking the cancellation of FLGLA No. 542 and the reversion of the entire 923
hectares to the Blaan and Maguindanaoan tribes. The case was docketed as COSLAP Case
No. 98-052.

Petitioner filed his Answer questioning the jurisdiction of the COSLAP over the case, since the
dispute involved a claim for recovery of ancestral land. Petitioner claimed that the case should
have been filed with the DENR since it is the latter which has jurisdiction to administer and
dispose of public lands, including grazing lands.

Notwithstanding petitioners objection to the COSLAPs exercise of jurisdiction over the case,
said body continued the hearings thereon. Petitioner alleged that COSLAP did not conduct
formal hearings on the case, and that he was not notified nor given the opportunity to be present
and participate in the field interviews and ocular inspections conducted by COSLAP.[2]

On August 3, 1998, the COSLAP issued a Decision ordering the cancellation of FLGLA No. 542.
Petitioner appealed the same to the Court of Appeals by petition for review on certiorari.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition in its Decision dated June 22, 2000, and also
denied petitioners motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated October 16, 2000.[3]

Hence, the present petition.

Held:

The petition is hereby DENIED.

The Court of Appeals also stated that based on the records, the the land area being claimed by
private respondents belongs to the Blaan indigenous cultural community since they have been
in possession of, and have been occupying and cultivating the same since time immemorial, a
fact has not been disputed by petitioner.[12] It was likewise declared by the appellate court that
FLGLA No. 542 granted to petitioner violated Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 410[13]
which states that all unappropriated agricultural lands forming part of the public domain are
declared part of the ancestral lands of the indigenous cultural groups occupying the same, and
these lands are further declared alienable and disposable, to be distributed exclusively among
the members of the indigenous cultural group concerned.

You might also like