FOLLOWING the heated controversy over the Cabacan–Times Beach demolition issue, Barangay 76-A Captain Robert Elnar Olanolan has filed a Petition for Review by way of Certiorari and a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) before the Supreme Court of the Philippines. The petition challenges the Office of the Ombudsman–Mindanao’s decision suspending him for 30 days without pay over his alleged interference in the demolition of houses in the contested property owned by Ecoland Properties Development Corporation (EPDC), now merged as DMC Urban Property Developers, Inc.
In his October 22, 2025, press statement, Olanolan said the move was not meant to defy the Ombudsman but to pursue justice and truth, asserting his sincerity in serving his constituents.
“Dili kini tungod sa pagdumili, apan usa ka mapainubsanon nga paningkamot alang sa hustisya ug kamatuoran. Dako akong pagrespeto sa Ombudsman, apan nagtuo ko nga sa desisyon wala nipatigbabaw ang tinuod nga tumong ug kasingkasing sa akong pag-alagad. Nagsalig ko nga ang Korte Suprema makakita sa akong tinuoray nga katuyoan — ang pag-alagad nga matinud-anon ug alang sa kaayohan sa katawhan,” Olanolan said.
(This is not due to refusal, but a humble effort for justice and truth. I have great respect for the Ombudsman, but I believe that the true purpose and heart of my service did not prevail in the decision. I trust that the Supreme Court will see my true intention — to serve honestly and for the welfare of the people.)
“Bisan sa mga pagsulay, magpadayon akong mag-alagad nga klaro, matinud-anon, ug sinsero. Sa katapusan, ang kamatuoran ug hustisya ang magadaog (Even with the trials, I will continue to serve clearly, honestly, and sincerely. In the end, truth and justice will prevail),” Olanolan continued.
Ombudsman suspension over demolition dispute
On October 20, Olanolan confirmed that he received a one-month suspension without pay from the Ombudsman-Mindanao. The administrative order stemmed from a complaint accusing him of grave abuse of authority and interference in the demolition activities conducted in Cabacan–Times Beach.
The contested area, located within Barangay 76-A, is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-161650, registered under EPDC, which has since been acquired by DMC Urban Property Developers, Inc. In its demand letter, the company said the residents’ continued occupation was unauthorized and illegal, and gave them 15 days to vacate or face legal action.
“In view of the foregoing, we hereby demand that you vacate the said property within fifteen (15) days from receipt of this letter,” the developer’s notice read. “Failure to comply within the prescribed period will compel us to initiate appropriate legal action, including an ejectment case.”
Olanolan, however, insisted that his actions were in defense of long-time residents of the community who have lived and worked in the area for decades.
“Ang akong lihok dili aron supakon ang balaod, kon dili aron panalipdan ang mga tinuod nga lumulupyo sa Cabacan–Times Beach batok sa demolisyon sa Ecoland Properties Development Corporation (EPDC). Dili ko kayang talikdan ang atong mga kaigsuonan nga dugay nang nagpuyo ug nanginabuhi sa maong luna (My action is not to oppose the law, but to protect the genuine residents of Cabacan–Times Beach against the demolition by Ecoland Properties Development Corporation (EPDC). I cannot abandon our brethren who have long lived and earned a living on that land),” Olanolan earlier said.
Residents’ rights and legal questions
The suspension has reignited debates about land ownership, urban housing rights, and the role of local officials in mediating between developers and long-term settlers. The disputed site falls within the area previously covered by Proclamation No. 20, signed in 1955 by then-President Ramon Magsaysay, which reserved around 24 hectares of land for recreational purposes under the supervision of the City Government of Davao.
Olanolan said that a barangay resolution has already been forwarded to the mayor’s office requesting Mayor Sebastian “Baste” Duterte and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to conduct a survey to determine whether the area occupied by the residents indeed falls within the proclaimed government property.
“Ayaw mo pagpatoo ana, naa nay Barangay Resolution nga gipasa sa Office of the Mayor Sebastian Baste Duterte for the intervention to request the DENR to locate the 24 hectares of the Proclamation No. 20… Hulaton nato ang result sa survey gikan sa DENR (Don't believe that, there is already a Barangay Resolution that was passed to the Office of the Mayor Sebastian 'Baste' Duterte for intervention to request the DENR (Department of Environment and Natural Resources) to locate the 24 hectares of Proclamation No. 20... Let's wait for the result of the survey from the DENR),” Olanolan told residents in a separate public message.
He assured the community that no private entity can remove them without a proper court process. “Korte lang makapapahawa sa inyo diha (Only the court can remove you from there),” he said, noting that any legal challenge could go through several judicial levels — from the Municipal Trial Court up to the Supreme Court.
Legal and political implications
The Ombudsman’s decision has triggered mixed reactions in the community. Supporters of Olanolan say his suspension is a blow to grassroots leadership and an affront to local officials who advocate for marginalized residents.
Meanwhile, some legal observers point out that barangay officials must exercise caution when intervening in private property disputes, especially when demolition orders are backed by legal documents or court directives.
The Office of the Ombudsman–Mindanao has yet to release its detailed findings, but its decision emphasizes that administrative sanctions may apply to local executives who are found to have exceeded their authority or obstructed lawful enforcement actions.
As the case now reaches the Supreme Court, Olanolan is seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt his suspension pending judicial review. The Court’s eventual ruling will not only determine his administrative fate but could also set a precedent for how far barangay leaders may go in protecting informal settlers caught in similar land disputes.
Continuing service amid suspension
Despite his suspension, Olanolan vowed to continue serving the people of Barangay 76-A in whatever capacity he can, saying his struggle is not personal but rooted in public service and community solidarity.
“Magpadayon ako sa pagbarug ug sa pagpanalipod sa katawhan. Kini nga pakigbisog dili para kanako, apan para sa tanan nga nagbarug alang sa hustisya ug katawhan ("I will continue to stand and protect the people. This fight is not for me, but for everyone who stands for justice and the people)," he said. “Manghinaut ko nga inyo akong tabangan sa pag-ampo alang sa hustisya (I hope you will help me in praying for justice), he added.
As of press time, the Office of the Ombudsman–Mindanao and DMC Urban Property Developers, Inc. have not issued any public statements regarding Olanolan’s petition before the Supreme Court.
Ecoland Properties Development Corporation in Davao City’s real estate landscape
Ecoland Properties and Development Corporation (EPDC) is a Davao City-based real estate development firm that has played a prominent role in shaping the city’s urban residential landscape.
Best known for establishing the Ecoland Subdivision in Matina and Bucana, EPDC became one of the early developers that contributed to Davao’s southern expansion during the 1980s and 1990s. The Ecoland area, which now houses residential subdivisions, commercial hubs, and condominiums, derived its name from the company itself.
EPDC’s corporate operations center around property acquisition, subdivision development, and land improvement. Its projects have attracted a wide range of residents, from middle-income homeowners to commercial investors. However, the company’s history has also been marked by recurring disputes with informal settlers and long-time occupants claiming ancestral or historical residence in its project sites — issues that reflect the broader tensions between rapid urbanization and social housing rights in Davao City.
In a Supreme Court decision (G.R. No. 152021, promulgated on May 17, 2005), EPDC was affirmed as the owner of a residential parcel located within Ecoland Subdivision Phase 4, Matina, Davao City. The case involved a 331-square-meter lot that had been subject to a contract to sell. The ruling, accessible through the Supreme Court’s eLibrary, reinforced EPDC’s property ownership rights and underscored the company’s legal foothold in local real estate development.
Media reports in recent years indicate that EPDC has continued to act as a developer and property owner across multiple areas of Davao City. However, the company has also faced controversy stemming from long-standing occupancy disputes.
In a January 2024 report by SunStar Davao, several long-time Bucana residents sought assistance from city officials regarding their possible relocation after receiving notices linked to EPDC-owned properties. The report reflected community fears over displacement and highlighted the persistent tension between urban development projects and grassroots settlements in coastal barangays.
The most recent controversy involving EPDC — now operating under its merged entity, DMC Urban Property Developers Inc. — concerns a tract of land in Cabacan–Times Beach covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-161650. Residents currently occupying portions of the property claim long-term residence and community ownership, while the developer has formally asserted its rights over the land.
EPDC issued demand letters to the residents declaring their occupation “unauthorized and without consent,” deeming it illegal and requiring them to vacate within 15 days. The company also indicated willingness for an amicable settlement but warned of possible legal action through ejectment proceedings if the demands were ignored.
This ongoing conflict, which has drawn the involvement of Barangay 76-A Captain Robert Elnar Olanolan, underscores the enduring challenge of balancing private property rights with community welfare. The situation has evolved into a legal and humanitarian concern, prompting intervention from both the local government and the courts. DEF