FACTS:

This case is a petition seeking to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in a case filed by private respondents. The controversy stems from orders issued by the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples-Cordillera Administrative Region (NCIP-CAR) in relation to the identification, delineation, and recognition of ancestral lands in the Busol Forest Reserve. The private respondents sought the issuance of a Certificate of Ancestral Land Title (CALT) as well as the prevention of demolition and destruction of their residential houses in the said area. They claimed that their ancestral land claims were protected under the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA). The NCIP-CAR issued temporary restraining orders (TRO) and a preliminary injunction in favor of the private respondents. The petitioners then filed a certiorari petition before the CA, which dismissed it due to procedural flaws and forum shopping. The CA ruled that the NCIP had the power to issue injunctive relief in accordance with the law. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied by the CA, prompting them to file a petition before the Supreme Court. The petition raises issues on the procedural defects of the certiorari petition and the entitlement of the private respondents to injunctive relief.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the present case has been rendered moot and academic.

2. Whether there are exceptions to the rule that the Court no longer entertains petitions which have been rendered moot.

3. Whether a motion for reconsideration is a condition precedent to the filing of a petition for certiorari.

4. Whether exceptions exist to warrant the petitioners' direct resort to a petition for certiorari before the CA.

5. Whether there is forum shopping in this case

6. Whether the petitioners are entitled to a preliminary injunction

7. Whether the private respondents are entitled to the issuance of injunctive writs to prevent the demolition of their house pending recognition of their land claims.

8. Whether the threat posed by the private respondents' continued occupation of the Busol Water Reserve justifies the denial of injunctive relief.

9. Whether the injunctive relief issued by the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) was without basis because the claimants failed to establish a clear and legal right.

10. Whether or not provisional remedies may be issued to individuals with ancestral claims over Busol.

11. Whether or not the grant or denial of provisional remedies affects the ancestral land claim of the applicants.

RULING:

1. The present case has been rendered moot and academic.

2. There are exceptions to the rule that the Court no longer entertains petitions which have been rendered moot. These exceptions include cases involving a grave violation of the Constitution, a situation of exceptional character of paramount public interest, the formulation of controlling principles, and cases capable of repetition yet evading review.

3. A motion for reconsideration is a condition precedent to the filing of a petition for certiorari. However, there are exceptions to this rule such as when the order is a patent nullity, when the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, and when there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or the petitioner, among others.

4. Exceptions exist to warrant the petitioners' direct resort to a petition for certiorari before the CA despite the lack of a motion for reconsideration filed before the NCIP. These exceptions include cases where the issue raised is one purely of law or public interest is involved.

5. The petition for certiorari does not amount to forum shopping since it seeks different relief based on different facts compared to the motion to dismiss filed before the NCIP.

6. The petitioners are not entitled to a preliminary injunction since they were not able to establish a clear and unmistakable right over the land in the Busol Forest Reserve.

7. The private respondents are not entitled to the issuance of injunctive writs. The Court held that a clear and unmistakable right is not enough to justify the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. There must also be a showing that the applicant would suffer irreparable injury. In this case, the damages alleged by the private respondents can be compensable through the award of damages, thus not falling within the concept of irreparable damage or injury. Furthermore, their continued occupation of the Busol Water Reserve poses a threat to its preservation and the sustainability of the watershed, which affects not only individuals or families inside the watershed, but also the entire community relying on it as a source of water.

8. The threat posed by the private respondents' continued occupation of the Busol Water Reserve justifies the denial of injunctive relief. The Court emphasized the importance of preserving watersheds and the need to protect water as a basic human necessity. Any danger to the sustainability of the Busol Water Reserve is irreversible and may not only affect the present generation, but also future generations.

9. Yes, the injunctive relief issued by the NCIP was without basis because the claimants failed to establish a clear and legal right. The Court ruled that the claimants principally relied on Proclamation No. 15 as the basis for their ancestral land claims in the Busol Forest Reserve. However, it was settled that Proclamation No. 15 is not a definitive recognition of their ancestral land claims as it only identifies their predecessors-in-interest as claimants. The Court held that before the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, claimants must show the existence of a right to be protected. Since the claimants failed to establish a clear and legal right, the injunctive relief issued by the NCIP was without basis.

10. Provisional remedies may not be issued to individuals with ancestral claims over Busol without a showing of a clear and unmistakable legal right. A pending or contingent right is insufficient for the issuance of provisional remedies.

11. The grant or denial of provisional remedies does not affect the ancestral land claim of the applicants. They are not barred from proving their rights in an appropriate proceeding.

PRINCIPLES:

• Forum shopping exists when a party files multiple actions based on the same cause, seeking different forums to obtain a favorable disposition. The elements of forum shopping include identity of parties, identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, and identity between the two preceding particulars.

• A preliminary injunction may be granted when the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, the invasion of the right sought to be protected is material and substantial, the right of the complainant is clear and unmistakable, and there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.

• A writ of preliminary injunction should be issued only to prevent grave and irreparable injury, which refers to injury that is actual, substantial, and demonstrable.

• Damages are considered irreparable if there is no standard by which their amount can be measured with reasonable accuracy.

• The protection of watersheds is important to ensure an adequate supply of water for future generations and to control flash floods that may cause damage to property and loss of lives.

• Courts are not endowed with jurisdictional competence to adjudicate forest lands.

• The NCIP is empowered to issue temporary restraining orders (TROs) and writs of injunction.

• Claimants must show the existence of a right to be protected before the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.

• Proclamation No. 15 is not a definitive recognition of ancestral land claims in the Busol Forest Reserve.

• Stare decisis applies when the Court has once laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases where the facts are substantially the same.

• Provisional remedies require a showing of a clear and unmistakable legal right.

• A pending or contingent right is insufficient for the issuance of provisional remedies.

• The grant or denial of provisional remedies does not affect the underlying claim of the applicants.