G.R. No. 213753, November 10, 2020
ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. ENELINDA AMOGOD, ET AL., Respondents.

FACTS

On May 7, 2007, and June 27, 2007, two groups of respondents, who were actual occupants of various parcels of land in Cagayan de Oro City (Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6), filed separate petitions for injunction (Civil Case Nos. 2007-104 and 2007-152) against the petitioner, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), Fourth Infantry Division, Philippine Army, Camp Edilberto Evangelista. The respondents averred that they and their predecessors-in-interest had been lawful occupants of the subject lands for more than 30 years; that their lands were outside the 32-hectare Camp Edilberto Evangelista given to the AFP by the Velezes; and that they had, as early as 1995, petitioned for the segregation and release of these lands. In 2007, after receiving a notice to vacate from the AFP and refusing to comply, respondents alleged they were harassed and some of their stores were closed, prompting them to seek an injunction to stop these actions and protect their peaceful possession.
The AFP, in its answer with counterclaim, contended that the respondents were squatters on a military reservation and thus considered nuisances per se subject to summary abatement. It claimed lawful ownership of the subject lands by virtue of a 1936 sale from Apolinar Velez, later acknowledged in deeds of donation and quitclaim from the Velezes and Pinedas.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the petitions for injunction in an Order dated October 29, 2008. It relied on a relocation/verification report from Engr. Arlene Galope and a supplemental report from DENR Director Dichoso, which concluded that the subject parcels were not only outside the AFP’s 36-hectare property but were also alienable and disposable land. The RTC held that respondents, being in actual possession since time immemorial, had a clear right that must be protected, and it ordered the AFP to cease eviction efforts, harassment, and to reopen closed stores.
The Court of Appeals (CA), in a Decision dated August 22, 2013, affirmed the RTC’s Order. The CA based its affirmation primarily on a September 21, 2010 Order from the DENR Regional Executive Director (RED) of Region X, which had granted the respondents’ petition for exclusion and segregation, finding the subject lots to be outside the military camp’s titled property. The CA denied the AFP’s subsequent motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated July 30, 2014. The AFP then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Regional Trial Court’s grant of a writ of injunction in favor of the respondents.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution.
The Court held that the grant of the injunctive writ by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, was proper. An injunction is a preservative remedy aimed at protecting a party’s substantive rights or interests. For it to issue, the applicant must establish a clear and unmistakable right to be protected and that the act complained of is violative of that right.
The Court found that the respondents sufficiently established a clear and present right to the possession of the subject properties warranting judicial protection. This right was anchored on their actual, physical, and long-standing possession, which the law protects even against the owner. The evidence, particularly the DENR RED’s Order of September 21, 2010, which had become final and executory, conclusively established that the subject lots were alienable and disposable lands of the public domain and were located outside the titled property of the AFP’s Camp Edilberto Evangelista. The DENR Order, having attained finality, settled the issue of the lots’ status and location.
Consequently, the AFP’s claim of ownership and its actions to evict the respondents as squatters on a military reservation had no legal basis. The respondents’ possession, being of alienable public land, could not be considered a nuisance per se. The AFP’s acts of threatening eviction, harassment, and store closures constituted a violation of the respondents’ possessory rights, justifying the issuance of the injunction to prevent a continuing wrong or injury.
The Court rejected the AFP’s arguments, emphasizing that the DENR Order was binding and that the respondents’ possession, coupled with the lots’ status as alienable public land, vested in them a right that the injunction rightly safeguarded.