Republic vs. Cortez

REPUBLIC VS. REV.
CLAUDIO CORTEZ
Facts:
Respondent Cortez is a missionary by vocation engaged in humanitarian and charitable activities.
He established an orphanage and school in Punta Verde, Palaui Island. He claimed that since
1962, he has been in peaceful possession of about 50 hectares of land located in the western
portion of Palaui Island with the help of Aetas and other people under his care, cleared and
developed for agricultural purposes in order to support his charitable, humanitarian and
missionary works.
President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 201 reserving for military purposes a parcel of the
public domain situated in Palaui Island. Pursuant thereto, the southern half portion of the Palaui
Island were withdrawn from sale or settlement and reserved for the use of the Philippine Navy,
subject, however, to private rights if there be any.
Thereafter, President Fidel V. Ramos issued Proclamation No. 447 declaring Palaui Island and
the surrounding waters situated in the Municipality of Sta. Ana, Cagayan as marine reserve.
Again subject to any private rights, the entire Palaui Island was accordingly reserved as a marine
protected area.
Rev. Cortez filed a Petition for Injunction with Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary
Mandatory Injunction against Rogelio C. Biñas, commanding officer of Phil. Naval Command
alleging that the latter disturbed his peaceful and lawful possession of the said 50-hectare portion
of Palaui Island when they commanded him, through the use of force and intimidation, to vacate
the area.
RTC – The Survey Map allegedly prepared by DENR personnel is only a sketch map and not a
survey map. Likewise, the exact boundaries of the area are not specifically indicated. The sketch
only shows some lines without indicating the exact boundaries of the 50 hectares claimed by
Rev. Cortez. As such, the identification of the area and its exact boundaries have not been clearly
defined and delineated in the sketch map. Therefore, the area of 50 hectares that Rev. Cortez
claimed to have peacefully and lawfully possessed for the last 38 years cannot reasonably be
determined or accurately identified.
The RTC held that Rev. Cortez has lawfully possessed and occupied at least five (5) hectares of
land and held that the affected community belongs to the group of indigenous people which are
protected by the State of their rights to continue in their possession of the lands they have been
tilling since time immemorial.
CA – upheld RTC’s issuance of final injunction.
ISSUE:
WON Rev. Cortez is entitled to a final writ of mandatory injunction
HELD:
No, the Court finds that Rev. Cortez failed to conclusively establish his claimed right over the
subject portion of Palaui Island as would entitle him to the issuance of a final injunction.
Injunction is a judicial writ, process or proceeding whereby a party is directed either to do a
particular act, in which case it is called a mandatory injunction, or to refrain from doing a
particular act, in which case it is called a prohibitory injunction
Two requisites must concur for injunction to issue:
(1) there must be a right to be protected; and
(2) the acts against which the injunction is to be directed are violative of said right.
Rev. Cortez argues that he is entitled to the said writ based on the right of possession (jus
possesionis) by reason of his peaceful and continuous possession of the subject area since 1962.
Jus possessionis or possession in the concept of an owner is one of the two concepts of
possession provided under Article 525 of the Civil Code. Also referred to as adverse possession
which can ripen into ownership by prescription. A possessor in the concept of an owner has in
his favor the legal presumption that he possesses with a just title and he cannot be obliged to
show or prove it. In the same manner, the law endows every possessor with the right to be
respected in his possession.
In this case, there is no such proof showing that the subject portion of Palaui Island has been
declared alienable and disposable when Rev. Cortez started to occupy the same. Hence, it must
be considered as still inalienable public domain, cannot be appropriated and therefore not a
proper subject of possession under Article 530 of the Civil Code. Rev. Cortez’ claimed right of
possession has no leg to stand on. His possession of the subject area, even if the same be in the
concept of an owner or no matter how long, cannot produce any legal effect in his favor since the
property cannot be lawfully possessed in the first place.
Respondents had to prove that the subject properties were alienable or disposable land of the
public domain prior to its withdrawal from sale and settlement and reservation for military
purposes under Presidential Proclamation No. 265. The question is primordial importance
because it is determinative if the land can in fact be subject to acquisitive prescription and, thus,
registrable under the Torrens system.
Respondents failed to prove that, before the proclamation, the subject lands were already private
lands. They merely relied on such ‘recognition’ of possible private rights. In their application,
they alleged that at the time of their application, they had been in open, continuous, exclusive
and notorious possession of the subject parcels of land for at least thirty (30) years and became
its owners by prescription. There was, however, no allegation or showing that the government
had earlier declared it open for sale or settlement, or that it was already pronounced as
inalienable and disposable.
Petition is granted.

Republic vs. Cortez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic vs. Cortez

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic vs. Cortez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC VS. REV.

You might also like