Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 136 views

    Republic vs. Cortez, GR No. 197472, September 7, 2015

    Uploaded by

    Janine Castro
    Rev. Cortez claimed possession of 50 hectares of land since 1962 and filed for an injunction against the naval commander who threatened his possession. The lower courts granted the injunction for 5 hectares, finding Cortez had proprietary rights. However, the Supreme Court ruled an injunction cannot be issued to protect possession of public land, which cannot be appropriated. As Cortez did not prove the land was not part of the public domain, he failed to show it could be properly possessed under law. Therefore, the final writ of mandatory injunction was not granted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Republic vs. Cortez, GR No. 197472, September 7, 2015

    Uploaded by

    Janine Castro
    136 views2 pages
    Rev. Cortez claimed possession of 50 hectares of land since 1962 and filed for an injunction against the naval commander who threatened his possession. The lower courts granted the injunction for 5 hectares, finding Cortez had proprietary rights. However, the Supreme Court ruled an injunction cannot be issued to protect possession of public land, which cannot be appropriated. As Cortez did not prove the land was not part of the public domain, he failed to show it could be properly possessed under law. Therefore, the final writ of mandatory injunction was not granted.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Republic vs Cortez

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Rev. Cortez claimed possession of 50 hectares of land since 1962 and filed for an injunction against the naval commander who threatened his possession. The lower courts granted the injunction for 5 hectares, finding Cortez had proprietary rights. However, the Supreme Court ruled an injunction cannot be issued to protect possession of public land, which cannot be appropriated. As Cortez did not prove the land was not part of the public domain, he failed to show it could be properly possessed under law. Therefore, the final writ of mandatory injunction was not granted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    136 views2 pages

    Republic vs. Cortez, GR No. 197472, September 7, 2015

    Uploaded by

    Janine Castro
    Rev. Cortez claimed possession of 50 hectares of land since 1962 and filed for an injunction against the naval commander who threatened his possession. The lower courts granted the injunction for 5 hectares, finding Cortez had proprietary rights. However, the Supreme Court ruled an injunction cannot be issued to protect possession of public land, which cannot be appropriated. As Cortez did not prove the land was not part of the public domain, he failed to show it could be properly possessed under law. Therefore, the final writ of mandatory injunction was not granted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Republic vs. Cortez, GR No.

    197472, September 7, 2015

    An inalienable public land cannot be appropriated and thus may not be the proper
    object of possession. Hence, injuncton cannot be issued in order to protect ones
    alleged right of possession over the same.

    Facts: Respondent Rev. Claudio R. Cortez, a missionary, established an orphanage


    and school in Cagayan. He claimed since 1962 he is in peaceful possession of
    about 50 heactares of land. In 1067 Marcos Issued Proclamation reserving for
    military purposes a parcel of the public domain in Palaui Island, subject to private
    rights, in 1994 Ramos also issued a proclamation reserving Sta. Ana as marine
    reserve.

    In 2000, Rev. Cortez filed a petition for injunction against Binas, commander of
    the Philipinne Naval Command in Sta. Ana who threatened his peaceful and lawful
    possession of the said 50 hectare land.

    The RTC ruled in favor of Rev. Cortez granting the Injunction for only 5 hectares
    of land stating that he may have acquired some proprietary rights over the area
    claimed. The CA affirmed the RTC based on the satisfaction of the 1) existence of
    a clear and unmistakable right that must be protection and 2) urgent and paramount
    necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage and the evidence that Rev. Cortes
    was in peaceful possesion of the land since 1962 prior the issuance.

    Issue: Whether or not Rev. Cortez is entiteld to a final writ of mandatory


    injunction
    Ruling: No, Final writ of mandatory injunction is issued when the court is
    convinced of the applicant’s right and of the act violative of such right based on its
    appreciation of the evidence presented. In the present case, no such evidence is
    presented, Rev. Cortez argues that he is entitled to the injunctive writ based on the
    right of possession (Jus Possesionis) by reason of his peaceful and continuous
    possession since 1962. Possession in the concept of an owner as recognized by the
    Civil Code is the possession which can ripen into ownership by prescription.
    However, only things and rights which are susceptible of being appropriated may
    be the object of possession, the property of the public dominion, common things
    and things specifically prohibited by law cannot be appropriated. Rev. Cortez
    failed to show that the subject area over which he claim is not part of the public
    domain, and therefore can be the proper object of possession. Hence, no writ may
    be issued.

    You might also like