04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The CA Ruling In a Decision[21] dated June 29, 2012, the CA reversed the ruling of the RTC, finding that petitioners failed to show any right to be protected. It relied on the Decision[22] rendered on August 31, 2006 by then DENR Secretary Angelo Reyes in DENR Case No. 5625, which recognized and respected the ancestral and preferential rights of Mariano Pangloy and the Heirs of Juanito Lardizabal over the subject property pending the final determination by the NCIP of their ancestral claim.[23] Accordingly, the CA held that where the plaintiff – as petitioners in this case –failed to demonstrate that he has an existing right to be protected by injunction, the suit for injunction must be dismissed for lack of cause of action.[24] Unperturbed, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, raising therein the Decision[25] of the NCIP Regional Hearing Office dated May 18, 2012, which ruled that between petitioners and Ernesto, the former have a better right to the issuance of ancestral land titles over the portions they are claiming to be their ancestral lands.[26] The CA, however, denied the motion in a Resolution[27] dated March 5, 2013, maintaining that petitioners have no right in esse. Thus, considering that petitioners have no building permit over the subject constructions, it ruled that the public respondents have the right to demolish the subject structures.[28] Hence, this petition. The Issues Before the Court The issues for resolution are: (a) whether the CA should have dismissed respondents’ appeal as it involves pure questions of law and/or for lack of merit; and (b) whether the issuance of a writ of injunction is warranted. The Court’s Ruling The petition is meritorious. I. On the preliminary procedural issue,Rule 41 of the Rules of Court (Rules) provides for three (3) ways by which an appeal from the RTC’s decision may be undertaken, depending on the nature of the attendant circumstances of the case, namely: (a) an ordinary appeal to the CA in cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction; (b) a petition for review to the CA in cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction; and (c) a petition for review on certiorari directly filed with the Court where only questions of law are raised or involved. [29]The first mode of appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules is available on questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and of law. The second mode of appeal, governed by Rule 42 of the Rules, is brought to the CA on questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and of law. The third mode of appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules is filed with the Court only on questions of law.[30] There is a “question of law” when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, and which does not call for an examination of the elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60932 3/13