Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 120 views

    Cutaran vs. Sec. of DENR, GR No. 134958

    Uploaded by

    Evander Mangalisan Arcenal
    The petitioners filed a petition to prevent the DENR from implementing special orders related to ancestral land claims in Cordillera, as the petitioners' application for a certificate of ancestral land claim was denied. The Court of Appeals upheld the validity of Special Order No. 25 but invalidated other special orders. The petitioners appealed, arguing Special Order No. 25 was also invalid. The Supreme Court ruled the petition was premature as there was no justiciable controversy, as the petitioners did not suffer direct harm from the implementation of the questioned regulation. The Court set aside the Court of Appeals' decision for lack of a justiciable controversy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Cutaran vs. Sec. of DENR, GR No. 134958

    Uploaded by

    Evander Mangalisan Arcenal
    120 views2 pages
    The petitioners filed a petition to prevent the DENR from implementing special orders related to ancestral land claims in Cordillera, as the petitioners' application for a certificate of ancestral land claim was denied. The Court of Appeals upheld the validity of Special Order No. 25 but invalidated other special orders. The petitioners appealed, arguing Special Order No. 25 was also invalid. The Supreme Court ruled the petition was premature as there was no justiciable controversy, as the petitioners did not suffer direct harm from the implementation of the questioned regulation. The Court set aside the Court of Appeals' decision for lack of a justiciable controversy.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioners filed a petition to prevent the DENR from implementing special orders related to ancestral land claims in Cordillera, as the petitioners' application for a certificate of ancestral land claim was denied. The Court of Appeals upheld the validity of Special Order No. 25 but invalidated other special orders. The petitioners appealed, arguing Special Order No. 25 was also invalid. The Supreme Court ruled the petition was premature as there was no justiciable controversy, as the petitioners did not suffer direct harm from the implementation of the questioned regulation. The Court set aside the Court of Appeals' decision for lack of a justiciable controversy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    120 views2 pages

    Cutaran vs. Sec. of DENR, GR No. 134958

    Uploaded by

    Evander Mangalisan Arcenal
    The petitioners filed a petition to prevent the DENR from implementing special orders related to ancestral land claims in Cordillera, as the petitioners' application for a certificate of ancestral land claim was denied. The Court of Appeals upheld the validity of Special Order No. 25 but invalidated other special orders. The petitioners appealed, arguing Special Order No. 25 was also invalid. The Supreme Court ruled the petition was premature as there was no justiciable controversy, as the petitioners did not suffer direct harm from the implementation of the questioned regulation. The Court set aside the Court of Appeals' decision for lack of a justiciable controversy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    CUTARAN vs.

    SEC OF DENR
    GR No. 134958; January 31, 2001

    FACTS

    A petition was originally filed with the Court of Appeals in 1998 to prevent DENR from
    implementing Special Order Nos. 31 entitled “Creation of a Special Task force on acceptance,
    identification, evaluation and delineation of ancestral land claims in the Cordillera
    Administrative Region.”, as amended by 31-A and 31-B, Special Order No. 25 and all other
    administrative issuances relative thereto, for having been issued without prior legislative
    authority.

    The petition was brought about when the petitioner’s relative was denied from their application
    of Certificate for Ancestral Land Claim. The heirs of Calantes filed for the same application and
    their property overlapped with the petitioners. Petitioners claim that even if no certificate of
    ancestral land claim has yet been issued by the DENR in favor of the heirs of Carantes, the latter,
    on the strength of certain documents issued by the DENR, tried to acquire possession of the land
    they applied for, including the portion occupied by herein petitioners. Petitioners also allege that
    the heirs of Carantes removed some of the improvements they introduced within the area they
    actually occupy and if not for the petitioner’s timely resistance to such intrusions, the petitioners
    would have been totally evicted therefrom.

    The CA on their decision on the petition, assailed the Special Order Nos. 31, 31-A and 31-B but
    sustained the validity of Special Order No. 25. The petitioners then filed within the Court a
    petition for review of the appellate court’s decision on the ground that the Court of Appeals erred
    in upholding the validity of Special Order No. 25 and it implementing rules.

    ISSUE

    Whether or not the CA erred in sustaining the validity of Special Order No, 25

    RULING

    It is prematurely filed, no justiciable controversy for the Court to resolve and should have been
    dismissed by the Appellate Court on this regard.

    There was no justiciable controversy because the petitioners suffered no wrong by the
    implementation of the questioned regulation and therefore, they are not entitled to relief.

    This Court cannot rule on the basis of petitioner’s speculation that the DENR will approve the
    application of the heirs of Carantes. There must be an actual governmental act which directly
    causes or will imminently cause injury to the alleged legal right of the petitioner to possess the
    land before the jurisdiction of this Court may be invoked. Subject to certain well-defined
    exceptions courts will not touch an issue involving the validity of a law unless there has been a
    governmental act accomplished or performed that has a direct adverse effect on the legal right of
    the person contesting its validity.

    For lack of justiciable controversy, the decision of the appellate court is hereby set aside.

    You might also like