04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Eduardo de Mesa, Aurora Eco, Eleuterio Fresnillo, Jovita Gabarda, Fausto Lledo, Pampilo Sabroso, Ismael, Rafaela and Regalado Tradio)[28] and anyone claiming under them to vacate the respective areas where they have resettled at Calauit Island, Busuanga, Palawan. Plaintiff-Republic through the Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources, is ordered to procure another suitable Relocation Sites for defendants within six months from receipt of this Decision.[29] The RTC held that the Resettlement Agreements, being duplicates of the originals and records of the Republic of the Philippines, are public documents notwithstanding their lack of notarization. As such, they are admissible in evidence even if the parties' signatures were not authenticated. The RTC also held that the vices of consent allegedly attached to the Resettlement Agreements would have served to render the agreements merely voidable and not void. However, the four-year period within which the petitioners could bring an action for annulment had long prescribed. On the issue of rescission, the RTC held that even assuming that the petitioners had grounds for rescission, they "could not unilaterally rescind the agreements, since the right to rescind must be invoked judicially."[30] The RTC, in deciding against the petitioners' return to Calauit, proclaimed: National Interest in the preservation of Calauit as Game Preserve and Sanctuary is the overriding factor which argues against the right of [petitioners] to return to Calauit. Assuming that the Resettlement Areas provided by [Respondent]-Republic did not measure up to the expectations of [petitioners], the recourse was not to renege on their Agreements by returning to Calauit and contributing to the disturbance or destruction of the Preserve, but to demand that [Respondent] deliver the fair value of the properties they vacated. [Respondent]-Republic is not entirely free from blame for what appears to have been an unwise choice of Relocation Sites and should be given an opportunity to rectify the mistake.[31] The petitioners sought the Court of Appeals' reversal of the RTC's decision in their Appeal docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 46222, entitled "Republic of the Philippines v. Aurellano Agnes, et al." Ruling of the Court of Appeals In a Decision promulgated on April 24, 2002, the Court of Appeals affirmed the assailed ruling of the RTC, viz.: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed Decision dated February 23, 1994, of the Regional Trial Court of Palawan and Puerto Princesa City, Branch 49, Fourth Judicial Regional, Palawan docketed as Civil Case No. 2262, is hereby AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.[32] The Court of Appeals concurred in the findings and conclusions of the RTC. In addition, it disputed the petitioners' claim of ownership on the lands of Calauit; and elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61037 6/19