View full case

REPUBLIC v. REV. CLAUDIO R. CORTEZ

FACTS:

The case revolves around the possession and occupation of a 50-hectare land in Palaui Island, Philippines. Rev. Claudio R. Cortez, a missionary, claims to have been in peaceful possession of the land, which he developed for agricultural purposes to support his charitable and missionary works. However, President Ferdinand Marcos issued Proclamation No. 201, reserving a portion of the public domain in Palaui Island for military purposes, subject to private rights. President Fidel Ramos later issued Proclamation No. 447, declaring Palaui Island and its surrounding waters as a marine reserve, also subject to any private rights.

Rev. Cortez filed a petition for injunction against the Commanding Officer of the Philippine Naval Command, alleging that members of the Philippine Navy disrupted his possession of the 50-hectare portion of Palaui Island and ordered him to vacate the area, which led him to leave. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction but only for a five-hectare subject area. The RTC held that Rev. Cortez's claim to the entire 50 hectares was unclear and ambiguous because the survey map presented by him was a sketch map without clearly indicating the exact boundaries. Rev. Cortez's documentary evidence only showed a pending application for a patent with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).

The Court of Appeals upheld the issuance of the injunction, stating that there is an urgent and paramount necessity to prevent serious damage, and Rev. Cortez has shown a clear and unmistakable right. The Office of the Solicitor General filed an appeal, questioning Rev. Cortez's capacity and entitlement to the injunction. The Supreme Court is now faced with the main issue of whether Rev. Cortez is entitled to a final writ of mandatory injunction. The Republic argues that Rev. Cortez failed to prove his clear and positive right over the portion of the island in question, while Rev. Cortez asserts that his right to possession is protected by law and that the Republic has no legal standing to appeal the decision.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the trial court correctly issued a final injunction.

  2. Whether the trial court complied with the requirement to state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which its decision is based.

  3. Whether the right of possession based on peaceful and continuous possession can protect Rev. Cortez from peremptory dispossession.

  4. Whether the subject area over which Rev. Cortez claims possession is part of the public domain and therefore not a proper object of possession.

  5. Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek an injunction to continue his humanitarian works.

  6. Whether the court should rule in accordance with the inalienability of public land.

RULING:

  1. The trial court incorrectly issued a final injunction. The court found that the trial court confused the distinction between a preliminary injunction and a final injunction. A preliminary injunction is a preventive remedy granted to prevent further harm while the main action is pending, while a final injunction is issued after trial on the merits. The court found that the trial court failed to establish with absolute certainty Rev. Cortez's claimed right over the subject area, which is necessary for the issuance of a final injunction.

  2. The trial court failed to comply with the requirement to state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which its decision is based. The court stated that the trial court did not provide factual findings and analysis on whether Rev. Cortez was able to establish his claimed right with absolute certainty. This violates the requirement for complete findings of facts in a decision and scrutinizing the legal aspects of the case.

  3. Rev. Cortez's right of possession based on peaceful and continuous possession does not protect him from peremptory dispossession. Possession in the concept of an owner (jus possesionis) can ripen into ownership by prescription, but it must be established that the object of possession is not part of the public domain and can be lawfully possessed. Since Rev. Cortez failed to prove that the subject area is not part of the public domain, his claimed right of possession has no legal effect.

  4. The subject area claimed by Rev. Cortez is presumed to belong to the State as it is part of the public domain. To establish that the land is alienable, there must be a positive act of the government to declare it as such. In this case, there is no proof that the subject area has been declared alienable and disposable. Therefore, it cannot be lawfully possessed and is not a proper object of possession.

  5. The court did not directly address the issue of whether the petitioner is entitled to seek an injunction to continue his humanitarian works. However, the court mentioned that in considering the inalienability of public land, they are constrained to rule against the petitioner's petition for injunction.

  6. The court ruled that in light of the inalienability of public land, the petition for injunction should be granted. The decision of the Court of Appeals denying the appeal and affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court is reversed and set aside. The injunction in this case is ordered to be dissolved and the petition for injunction is dismissed.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Injunction is a judicial writ, process, or proceeding that directs a party to either do or refrain from doing a particular act.

  • A preliminary injunction seeks to prevent further harm or injustice until the rights of the parties are settled, while a final injunction is issued after trial on the merits.

  • The right to be protected and the violative acts must concur for an injunction to be granted.

  • A decision, judgment, or final order determining the merits of the case must state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.

  • Possession in the concept of an owner (jus possesionis) is one of the two concepts of possession provided under Article 525 of the Civil Code.

  • A possessor in the concept of an owner has the legal presumption of possessing with a just title and the right to be respected in his possession.

  • Things and rights that are not susceptible of being appropriated cannot be possessed, such as property of the public dominion, common things (res communes), and things specifically prohibited by law.

  • All lands of the public domain belong to the State, and a land is presumed to be part of the public domain unless it is shown to have been reclassified or alienated to private persons.

  • To prove that a land is alienable, there must be a positive act of the government, such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order, an administrative action, investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators, or a legislative act or statute declaring the land as alienable and disposable.

  • Public land is inalienable, and therefore, the court is constrained to rule in accordance with its inalienability.

  • The court has the authority to grant or dissolve an injunction based on the circumstances of the case.