04/02/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Port San Vicente, Sta. Ana, Cagayan. According to him, some members of the
Philippine Navy, upon orders of Biñas, disturbed his peaceful and lawful possession
of the said 50-hectare portion of Palaui Island when on March 15, 2000, they
commanded him and his men, through the use of force and intimidation, to vacate
the area. When he sought assistance from the Office of the Philippine Naval
Command, he was met with sarcastic remarks and threatened with drastic military
action if they do not vacate. Thus, Rev. Cortez and his men were constrained to
leave the area. In view of these, Rev. Cortez filed the said Petition with the RTC
seeking preliminary mandatory injunction ordering Biñas to restore to him
possession and to not disturb the same, and further, for the said preliminary writ, if
issued, to be made permanent.
Proceedings before the Regional Trial Court
After the conduct of hearing on the application for preliminary mandatory
injunction[6] and the parties' submission of their respective memoranda,[7] the RTC
issued an Order[8] dated February 21, 2002 granting the application for a writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction. However, the same pertained to five hectares
(subject area) only, not to the whole 50 hectares claimed to have been occupied by
Rev. Cortez, viz.:
It should be noted that the claim of [Rev. Cortez] covers an area of 50
hectares more or less located at the western portion of Palaui Island
which is within the Naval reservation. [Rev. Cortez] presented what he
called as a survey map (Exh. "H") indicating the location of the area
claimed by the Church of the Living God and/or Rev. Claudio Cortez with
an approximate area of 50 hectares identified as Exh. "H-4". However,
the Survey Map allegedly prepared by [a] DENR personnel is only a
sketch map[,] not a survey map as claimed by [Rev. Cortez]. Likewise,
the exact boundaries of the area [are] not specifically indicated. The
sketch only shows some lines without indicating the exact boundaries of
the 50 hectares claimed by [Rev. Cortez]. As such, the identification of
the area and its exact boundaries have not been clearly defined and
delineated in the sketch map. Therefore, the area of 50 hectares that
[Rev. Cortez] claimed to have peacefully and lawfully possessed for the
last 38 years cannot reasonably be determined or accurately identified.
For this reason, there is merit to the contention of [Biñas] that [Rev.
Cortez]' claim to the 50 hectares of land identified as Exh. ["]H-4" is
unclear and ambiguous. It is a settled jurisprudence that mandatory
injunction is the strong arm of equity that never ought to be extended
unless to cases of great injury, where courts of law cannot afford an
adequate and commensurate remedy in damages. The right must be
clear, the injury impending or threatened, so as to be averted only by the
protecting preventive process of injunction. The reason for this doctrine is
that before the issue of ownership is determined in the light of the
evidence presented, justice and equity demand that the [status quo be
maintained] so that no advantage may be given to one to the prejudice of
the other. And so it was ruled that unless there is a clear pronouncement
regarding ownership and possession of the land, or unless the land is
covered by the torrens title pointing to one of the parties as the
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61257
2/13