04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly On motion of counsel for defendants and there being no objection on the part of counsel for the plaintiffs, the instant case is hereby ordered dismissed without prejudice. The foregoing Order was prompted by petitioners' manifestation that they had a pending appeal before the Office of the President relative to the July 14, 1987 Order of DENR Secretary Factoran directing the petitioners and the other settlers to leave Calauit and return to their resettlement areas in Halsey and Burabod.[24] The Office of the President ultimately denied said appeal. Some of the settlers failed to comply with Secretary Factoran's July 14, 1987 Order to vacate Calauit; thus, the Republic of the Philippines (herein respondent), represented by the DENR Secretary, filed a Complaint for Specific Performance and Recovery of Possession with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction against herein petitioners before the RTC, Branch 49, Puerto Princesa City.[25] The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 2262, entitled "Republic of the Philippines v. Aurellano Agnes, et al." In said Complaint, herein respondent alleged that the petitioners' repossession and reoccupation of portions of Calauit are patently unlawful and grossly reproachable as they had already waived and relinquished whatever rights they had on the island when they signed and executed their respective Resettlement Agreements. The respondent claimed that by returning to Calauit, the petitioners breached their contracts, the Resettlement Agreements, which they voluntarily and freely executed. Moreover, by virtue of Proclamation No. 1578, which closed Calauit to exploitation and settlement, the respondent contended that the petitioners are staying on the island as "squatters" on public land. The respondent also complained of the great damage and disturbance the petitioners were doing to the natural resources and the protected animals in Calauit.[26] In their "Answer with Counterclaims,"[27] herein petitioners alleged that the Resettlement Agreements were executed with deceit, intimidation, misrepresentation, and fraud; hence they are illegal and void. They also contested their admissibility on the ground that they are private documents, which have not been authenticated. They also claim that it was actually the respondent who breached its contract by providing poor resettlement areas, which resulted in their subhuman and marginal existence. The petitioners denied causing damage to the island and the animals in Calauit, as they only occupied the coastal areas, away from the animals' roaming grounds and habitat. The petitioners then prayed for the nullification of the Resettlement Agreements for having been procured through violence, intimidation, deceit, misrepresentation, and fraud. In the alternative, they called for the rescission of the contracts for respondent's material breach of its obligations. Lastly, they asked for Twenty-Five Thousand (25,000.00) Pesos each as temperate, exemplary, and moral damages. Ruling of the RTC On February 23, 1994, the RTC of Puerto Princesa City rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, the Court hereby orders the defendants (with the exception of Alfredo Aunang, Juana Apuen, Eufricinia Bello, Bartolome Darol, elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61037 5/19