G.R. No. 214926 . January 25, 2023.
CRISOSTOMO B. AQUINO, PETITIONER, VS. AGUA TIERRA ORO MINA (ATOM) DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & CEO, VIRGILIO A. BOTE, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Respondent Agua Tierra Oro Mina Development Corporation (ATOM) owns a three-hectare parcel of land adjoining a seaside lot in Boracay. ATOM has a pending foreshore lease application for the seaside lot, on which it plans to build a resort-hotel. ATOM alleged that petitioner Crisostomo B. Aquino illegally took possession of the seaside lot in 2006 and began constructing permanent concrete structures. Despite requests from ATOM and the local government to desist, Aquino continued. ATOM filed an action for recovery of possession, injunction, and damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kalibo, Aklan, arguing Aquino’s occupation violated a municipal ordinance and that ATOM, as the adjacent owner, had a preferential right.
Aquino claimed he bought the seaside lot in 2005 and argued the lot was not foreshore land but forest land, over which the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) had primary jurisdiction. He stated his company had a pending Forest Land Use Agreement for Tourism (FLAgT) application for the lot, which the DENR eventually granted in December 2009. Aquino contended that the RTC had no jurisdiction and that the DENR should adjudicate the right to possess.
The RTC granted ATOM’s prayer for a preliminary injunction, citing environmental concerns and the no-build provisions of a municipal ordinance. The RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction on August 31, 2010. Aquino’s motions to dismiss and dissolve the injunction were denied. The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed Aquino’s petition for certiorari, upholding the RTC’s orders. The CA ruled the injunction was proper to protect the right to a balanced and healthful ecology, excused the bond requirement by likening the writ to a Temporary Environmental Protection Order under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, and affirmed the RTC’s jurisdiction over the possessory action.

ISSUE

1. Whether the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction was proper under the circumstances.
a. Whether the RTC and CA’s application of environmental rights and rules of procedure is proper.
b. Whether the RTC erred in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction without proof that ATOM posted the required bond.
2. Whether Civil Case No. 8577 should be dismissed on the basis of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.

RULING

1. The Supreme Court ruled that the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction was improper. The requisites for a preliminary injunction were not met. ATOM’s complaint did not invoke the right to a balanced and healthful ecology; it was based on alleged violation of a municipal ordinance and preferential right as an adjacent owner. The RTC and CA improperly injected environmental considerations not raised by ATOM. The right to a balanced and healthful ecology, while fundamental, cannot be used to justify injunctive relief when not pleaded. Furthermore, the CA erred in excusing the bond requirement by characterizing the writ as a Temporary Environmental Protection Order. The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases require a verified pleading asserting a right to a healthful ecology, which ATOM’s complaint lacked. Therefore, the injunction was issued without legal basis.
2. The Supreme Court ruled that Civil Case No. 8577 should be dismissed for lack of cause of action. The seaside lot is public land, classified as forest land within a timberland area, as confirmed by the DENR. As public land, it is outside the commerce of man and cannot be subject to private ownership or a possessory action. ATOM’s cause of action for recovery of possession presupposes ownership or a better right of possession, which it cannot have over inalienable public land. Its pending foreshore lease application does not confer a possessory right. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction is not applicable because the fundamental issue is the nature of the land as public domain, over which the courts retain jurisdiction to determine. However, since the land is public, ATOM has no cause of action for recovery of possession against Aquino. The proper remedy for both parties is to pursue their respective applications with the DENR. The RTC and CA decisions were reversed and set aside. Civil Case No. 8577 was dismissed.