04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In this case, however, the respondents miserably failed to prove that, before the proclamation, the subject lands were already private lands. They merely relied on such 'recognition' of possible private rights. In their application, they alleged that at the time of their application, they had been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the subject parcels of land for at least thirty (30) years and became its owners by prescription. There was, however, no allegation or showing that the government had earlier declared it open for sale or settlement, or that it was already pronounced as inalienable and disposable.[48] In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that Rev. Cortez failed to conclusively establish his claimed right over the subject portion of Palaui Island as would entitle him to the issuance of a final injunction. Anent the technical issue raised by Rev. Cortez, i.e, that the Republic has no personality to bring this Petition since it was not a party before the CA, the Court deems it prudent to set aside this procedural barrier. After all, "a party's standing before [the] Court is a [mere] procedural technicality which may, in the exercise of [its] discretion, be set aside in view of the importance of the issue raised."[49] We note that Rev. Cortez alleged that he sought the injunction so that he could continue his humanitarian works. However, considering that inalienable public land was involved, this Court is constrained to rule in accordance with the aforementioned. WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The June 29, 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR. CV No. 89968 denying the appeal and affirming the July 3, 2007 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Aparri, Cagayan-Branch 08 in Spl. Civil Action Case No. 11-2403, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the final injunction issued in this case is ordered DISSOLVED and the Petition for Injunction in Spl. Civil Action Case No. II-2403, DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. Carpio, Brion, Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concur. [1] Rollo, pp. 8-48. [2] CA rollo, pp. 204-211; penned by Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino and concurred in by Associate Justices Jugin Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Ramon M. Bato, Jr. [3] Records, pp. 233-241; penned by Presiding Judge Conrado F. Manauis. [4] Id at 1-2. [5] Id. at 1 -4; docketed as Spl. Civil Action Case No. 11 -2403. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61257 10/13