This Supreme Court case clarifies that claiming possession of public land, even for an extended period and with good intentions, does not grant ownership or the right to legal protection against eviction. The decision underscores the principle that unless land is officially classified as alienable (transferable to private ownership), it remains the property of the state. This ruling emphasizes the importance of government acts in determining land ownership and the limitations on private claims over public resources.

島と権利：公共財産の保護における国家と個人の争い

The central conflict arose from Rev. Claudio R. Cortez, Sr.’s claim to about 5 hectares of land on Palaui Island in Cagayan, which he had occupied since 1962 for humanitarian activities. He sought an injunction to prevent the Philippine Navy from disturbing his possession. The Republic, represented by Commander Raymond Alpuerto, argued that the land was part of a military reserve and later a marine reserve, and thus, inalienable public land. The key legal question was whether Rev. Cortez’s long-term possession entitled him to legal protection against the government’s claim.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially granted Rev. Cortez’s petition, citing the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA). However, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision, emphasizing Rev. Cortez’s long-term possession and the “private rights” clause in presidential proclamations reserving the island for military and marine reserve purposes. The Republic then appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that Rev. Cortez had failed to prove a clear and positive right over the land. This case pivots on the legal doctrine that governs land ownership in the Philippines and the principle of the State’s dominion over public resources.

The Supreme Court reversed the CA’s decision, emphasizing the **Regalian Doctrine**, which asserts that all lands of the public domain belong to the State. The Court underscored that public land remains inalienable unless the government declares it as alienable and disposable. In this instance, Rev. Cortez could not demonstrate that the land he claimed was officially classified for private ownership at the time he began occupying it. This absence of proof negated his claim, regardless of the duration or nature of his possession. The High Tribunal also considered the effect of presidential proclamations No. 201 and 447 that reserved Palaui Island for military and marine purposes.

The Supreme Court referenced Republic v. Bacas, clarifying that even if reservations were subject to “private rights,” claimants must still prove the land was alienable before its reservation. Without this proof, claims based on mere possession are invalid. In essence, the “private rights” provision protects existing rights that were already perfected before the land’s designation as public reserve. This is not an opportunity to claim new rights based on later occupation. The High Court cited Republic v. Estonilo, reiterating that people claiming rights over reserved land were not precluded from proving their claims.

The Supreme Court carefully distinguished between preliminary and final injunctions, emphasizing that final injunctions require conclusive establishment of the claimed right. The RTC, in its decision, mistakenly cited jurisprudence relating to preliminary injunctions. It needed to establish conclusively Rev. Cortez’s claimed right over the area, based on evidence presented during trial. Because Rev. Cortez failed to prove that the occupied land was alienable, the Supreme Court determined that a final injunction in his favor was inappropriate.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court addressed the relevance of jus possessionis or possession in the concept of an owner. This concept, under Article 525 of the Civil Code, typically allows possession to ripen into ownership through prescription. However, the court clarified that **only things susceptible to appropriation may be the object of possession**. This excludes property of the public dominion. Ultimately, the Supreme Court asserted that since the land was not proven to be alienable when Rev. Cortez occupied it, his possession, irrespective of its nature or duration, could not create legal rights in his favor. This effectively reinforces the supremacy of the Regalian Doctrine.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether Rev. Cortez’s long-term possession of public land entitled him to a permanent injunction protecting his possession against the government. The Supreme Court ruled that it did not.
What is the Regalian Doctrine?	The Regalian Doctrine asserts that all lands of the public domain belong to the State. This means private claims must be based on an official government declaration that the land is alienable.
What does “subject to private rights” mean in presidential proclamations?	This phrase protects rights that existed before the proclamation was issued. It does not grant new rights to those who occupied the land after it was reserved.
What must one prove to claim possession of public land?	One must show that the government declared the land alienable and disposable before the claimant began occupying it. Mere long-term possession is not enough.
What is a preliminary injunction vs. a final injunction?	A preliminary injunction is a temporary measure to prevent irreparable harm before a full trial. A final injunction is issued after a trial on the merits, permanently resolving the issue.
What is jus possessionis?	Jus possessionis refers to possession in the concept of an owner, which, under normal circumstances, can ripen into ownership through prescription. However, this does not apply to inalienable public land.
Why did the Supreme Court overturn the Court of Appeals’ decision?	The Supreme Court found that Rev. Cortez had failed to prove that the land he occupied was alienable public land. This proof is necessary to support a claim of private rights over public property.
What is the practical impact of this decision?	This decision clarifies that mere occupation of public land, even with good intentions and for a long time, does not grant ownership or the right to protection against government claims. It reinforces the state’s power to manage public resources.

In conclusion, this case reinforces the primacy of the Regalian Doctrine and emphasizes the need for individuals to establish that land they occupy has been officially classified as alienable before claiming any private rights over it. The decision clarifies the requirements for obtaining an injunction to protect possession of land, particularly when public land 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 VS. CORTEZ, G.R. No. 197472, September 07, 2015