04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In his Answer,[10] Biñas countered that: (1) Rev. Cortez has not proven that he has been in exclusive, open, continuous and adverse possession of the disputed land in the concept of an owner; (2) Rev. Cortez has not shown the exact boundaries and identification of the entire lot claimed by him; (3) Rev. Cortez has not substantiated his claim of exemption from Proclamation No. 201; (4) under Proclamation No. 447, the entire Palaui Island, which includes the land allegedly possessed and occupied by Rev. Cortez, was reserved as a marine protected area; and, (4) injunction is not a mode to wrest possession of a property from one person by another. Pre-trial and trial thereafter ensued. On July 3, 2007, the RTC rendered its Decision[11] making the injunction final and permanent. In so ruling, the said court made reference to the Indigenous Peoples' [Fight] Act (EPRA) as follows: The Indigenous [Peoples' Right] Act should be given effect in this case. The affected community belongs to the group of indigenous people which are protected by the State of their rights to continue in their possession of the lands they have been tilling since time immemorial. No subsequent passage of law or presidential decrees can alienate them from the land they are tilling.[12] Ultimately, the RTC held, thus: WHEREFORE, finding the petition to be meritorious, the same is hereby GRANTED. xxxx SO DECIDED.[13] Representing Biñas, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Notice of Appeal[14] which was given due course by the RTC in an Order[15] dated August 6, 2007. Ruling of the Court of Appeals In its brief,[16] the OSG pointed out that Rev. Cortez admitted during trial that he filed the Petition for injunction on behalf of the indigenous cultural communities in Palaui Island and not in his capacity as pastor or missionary of the Church of the Living God. He also claimed that he has no interest over the land. Based on these admissions, the OSG argued that the Petition should have been dismissed outright on the grounds that it did not include the name of the indigenous cultural communities that Rev. Cortez is supposedly representing and that the latter is not the real party-in-interest. In any case, the OSG averred that Rev. Cortez failed to show that he is entitled to the issuance of the writ of injunction. Moreover, the OSG questioned the RTC's reference to the EPRA and argued that it is not applicable to the present case since Rev. Cortez neither alleged in his Petition that he is claiming rights under the said act nor was there any showing that he is a member of the elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61257 4/13