G.R. No. 197472 September 7, 2015
Republic of the Philippines, represented by Commander Raymond Alpuerto of the Naval Base Camillo Osias, Port San Vicente, Sta. Ana, Cagayan, Petitioner, vs. Rev. Claudio R. Cortez, Sr., Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Rev. Claudio R. Cortez, Sr., a missionary, claimed peaceful possession since 1962 of about 50 hectares of land on Palaui Island, which he and others cleared and developed for agricultural purposes to support his charitable works. On May 22, 1967, President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Proclamation No. 201, reserving 2,000 hectares of the southern half of Palaui Island for military use by the Philippine Navy, subject to private rights. On August 16, 1994, President Fidel V. Ramos issued Proclamation No. 447, declaring the entire Palaui Island a marine reserve, also subject to private rights. On June 13, 2000, Rev. Cortez filed a Petition for Injunction against the naval command, alleging that on March 15, 2000, navy members, through force and intimidation, commanded him and his men to vacate the area. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially granted a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction for five hectares only, not the entire 50, noting the claim’s boundaries were unclear and that Proclamation No. 201 had removed the island from the alienable public domain. After trial, the RTC rendered a Decision on July 3, 2007, making the injunction final and permanent, citing the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA). The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed. The Court of Appeals, in its June 29, 2011 Decision, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the RTC, finding that Rev. Cortez had a clear and unmistakable right to possess the five hectares based on his long-term occupation and cultivation.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s issuance of a final and permanent injunction restoring Rev. Cortez’s possession of a portion of Palaui Island, which had been proclaimed as a military reservation and later as a marine reserve.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the Petition and reversed the Court of Appeals Decision. The Court held that an inalienable public land cannot be appropriated and thus may not be the proper object of possession. Consequently, injunction cannot be issued to protect an alleged right of possession over such land. The land in question, being part of Palaui Island, was withdrawn from sale or settlement and reserved for specific public purposes (military and marine reserve) by presidential proclamations. These proclamations converted the land into inalienable public land. While the proclamations were subject to existing private rights, Rev. Cortez failed to prove he had acquired a vested right or title to the land. His occupation began only in 1962, a mere five years before Proclamation No. 201 was issued in 1967, which was insufficient time to perfect a claim under the Public Land Act. Furthermore, his possession was not in the concept of an owner but merely that of a holder, as he claimed to be acting on behalf of indigenous communities. Since the land is inalienable public land, no private right of possession susceptible to protection by injunction exists. The RTC’s reference to the IPRA was also erroneous, as Rev. Cortez did not claim rights under it, and there was no showing he or his beneficiaries were members of Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples as defined therein. Therefore, the injunctive writs issued by the lower courts had no legal basis.