This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-02-16 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The CA apparently misread and misapplied the Court's ruling in Bañaga v. Court of Appeals.[28] Bañaga involved two contending parties who filed free patent applications for a parcel of public land with the Bureau of Lands. Because of the Bureau of Lands' failure to act within a reasonable time on the applications and to conduct an investigation, the COSLAP decided to assume jurisdiction over the case. Since the dispute involved a public land on a free patent issue, the COSLAP undeniably had jurisdiction over the Bañaga case. | |||||
|
2005-06-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| COSLAP filed its own comment to the petition, arguing that to divest itself of jurisdiction over the subject matter will defeat the purpose of its creation.[33] It cited this Court's pronouncement in Bañaga vs. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems,[34] which pertinently states:. . . It is true that Executive Order No. 561 provides that the COSLAP may take cognizance of the cases which are "critical and explosive in nature considering, for instance, the large number of parties involved, the presence or emergence of social tension or unrest, or other similar critical situations requiring immediate action. However, the use of word "may" does not mean that the COSLAP's jurisdiction is merely confined to the above-mentioned cases. The provisions of the said Executive Order are clear that COSLAP was created as a means of providing a more effective mechanism for the expeditious settlement of land problems in general, which are frequently the source of conflicts among settlers, landowners and cultural minorities. Besides, the COSLAP merely took over from the abolished PACLAP whose functions, including its jurisdiction, power and authority to act on, decide and resolve land disputes (Sec. 2, P.D. No. 832) were all assumed by it.[35] | |||||