The Supreme Court ruled that an injunction cannot protect possession of inalienable public land. Even if someone has been occupying the land, if the government hasn’t officially declared it open for private ownership, their claim can’t be legally protected by an injunction. This decision emphasizes the State’s paramount right over public lands, highlighting that mere possession, regardless of duration, does not equate to a right enforceable against the government. This ruling underscores the importance of verifying the alienable status of land before making improvements or claiming rights of possession.

Can Peaceful Possession Trump the Public Domain?

This case revolves around Rev. Claudio R. Cortez, Sr., who sought an injunction to protect his claimed possession of a 50-hectare land within Palaui Island. He had established an orphanage and school there, arguing continuous possession since 1962. However, the land was declared a military reserve in 1967 and later a marine reserve in 1994. The central legal question is whether Rev. Cortez’s long-term possession gave him a right that could be protected by an injunction, despite the land’s public status and the government’s subsequent declarations.

The Republic, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), argued that Rev. Cortez failed to prove a clear and positive right over the land. The OSG emphasized that his possession began only in 1962, falling short of the time needed to establish a bona fide ownership claim before the land was declared a military reserve. They argued that the phrase “subject to private rights” in the proclamations applied only to those with perfected titles prior to the declarations.

Rev. Cortez countered that his petition was based on the right of possession (jus possesionis), distinct from ownership. He claimed that his peaceful and continuous possession entitled him to legal protection against dispossession. Rev. Cortez maintained that the injunction was correctly issued based on his established right of possession. He also questioned the Republic’s legal standing to appeal the Court of Appeals’ decision.

The Supreme Court differentiated between preliminary and final injunctions. A preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy to prevent threatened wrong or further injury until the parties’ rights are settled. A final injunction, on the other hand, is a judgment that permanently restrains certain actions after a trial on the merits.

The Court noted that the RTC’s decision failed to adequately distinguish between the standards for preliminary and final injunctions. The RTC cited jurisprudence relevant to preliminary injunctions without properly assessing whether Rev. Cortez had conclusively established his right to the land. This lack of thorough analysis and factual findings prompted the Supreme Court to address the merits of the case directly.

The crucial issue was whether Rev. Cortez had established a right to be protected by an injunction. The Court emphasized that to be the basis for a final and permanent injunction, the right and the act violative thereof must be established by the applicant with absolute certainty. Rev. Cortez argued his right stemmed from jus possesionis, citing his continuous possession since 1962. However, the Court pointed out a critical flaw in his argument.

The Court stated that only things susceptible to appropriation can be objects of possession. Property of public dominion cannot be appropriated and hence, cannot be possessed. The critical issue here is that Rev. Cortez failed to prove that the land was not part of the public domain and could be the proper object of possession. The Court based its ruling on the Regalian Doctrine, which posits that all lands of the public domain belong to the State.

“All lands not appearing to be clearly under private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Also, public lands remain part of the inalienable land of the public domain unless the State is shown to have reclassified or alienated them to private persons.”

The Court noted the lack of evidence demonstrating that the subject portion of Palaui Island had been declared alienable and disposable when Rev. Cortez began occupying it. Absent such proof, the land remained inalienable public domain. Therefore, it cannot be appropriated and is not a proper subject of possession under Article 530 of the Civil Code. Thus, Rev. Cortez’s claimed right of possession had no legal basis.

The Court found that the proclamations reserving the land for military and marine purposes, even with the “subject to private rights” clause, did not validate Rev. Cortez’s claim. Citing Republic v. Bacas, the Court emphasized that claimants must prove the land was alienable and disposable prior to its withdrawal from sale and settlement. Without such a showing, the length and nature of possession are irrelevant.

As there has been no showing that the subject parcels of land had been segregated from the military reservation, the 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. Without first determining the nature and character of the land, all other requirements such as length and nature of possession and occupation over such land do not come into play. The required length of possession does not operate when the land is part of the public domain.

The decision reinforces the principle that long-term possession does not automatically grant rights over public land. It underscores the importance of due diligence in verifying the status of land before occupying or investing in it. It also clarifies that government proclamations reserving land for specific purposes take precedence over individual claims of possession unless those claims were perfected before the reservation.

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether Rev. Cortez’s long-term possession of land within a declared military and marine reserve entitled him to an injunction protecting his possession, despite the land’s public status.
What is jus possesionis?	Jus possesionis refers to the right of possession, which Rev. Cortez claimed as the basis for his injunction petition, arguing his continuous and peaceful possession entitled him to protection.
What is the Regalian Doctrine?	The Regalian Doctrine states that all lands of the public domain belong to the State, meaning that any land not clearly under private ownership is presumed to be owned by the government.
Why was the land considered inalienable?	The land was considered inalienable because there was no proof that the government had declared it open for sale or settlement before it was reserved for military and marine purposes.
What does “subject to private rights” mean in this context?	The phrase “subject to private rights” in the presidential proclamations refers only to those rights that were perfected prior to the issuance of the proclamations, not merely to claims based on possession.
What is the difference between a preliminary and final injunction?	A preliminary injunction is a temporary remedy to prevent harm until a case is decided, while a final injunction is a permanent order issued after a trial, dictating the final resolution of the issue.
What did Rev. Cortez need to prove to win his case?	Rev. Cortez needed to prove that the land he occupied was alienable and disposable public land before it was reserved for military and marine purposes.
What is the main takeaway from this case?	The key takeaway is that possession of public land, no matter how long or peaceful, does not create a legal right enforceable against the government unless the land was declared alienable before the possession began.

This case serves as a reminder of the complexities surrounding land rights and the importance of understanding the legal status of property. It clarifies the limitations of possession as a basis for claiming rights against the State, especially when dealing with public lands. The court’s decision is a clear interpretation of existing laws and a guide for settling land disputes where public interest is involved.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. REV. CLAUDIO R. CORTEZ, SR., G.R. No. 197472, September 07, 2015