Case Digest (G.R. No. 213753)
Facts:
Armed Forces of the Philippines v. Enelinda Amogod et al., G.R. No. 213753, November 10, 2020, First Division, Gaerlan, J., writing for the Court.In May and June 2007, numerous residents (respondents) who described themselves as the actual occupants of several lots in Cagayan de Oro City filed separate petitions for injunction (Civil Case Nos. 2007-104 and 2007-152) against the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), Fourth Infantry Division (4ID), Philippine Army (petitioner). The respondents alleged long, uninterrupted occupation—more than 30 years—of parcels identified as Lots 2–6 (Lots 45748, 45749, 45750, 45751, 45752) of CAD 237 and sought to enjoin the AFP from evicting them and from closing their stores after the AFP served notices to vacate in 2007.
The AFP answered and counterclaimed, asserting ownership through a sale purportedly effected in 1936 and evidenced by subsequent quitclaim deeds and deeds of donation from the Velez and Pineda families (1951 and 1960 instruments). The AFP maintained the parcels were part of land it acquired and that the occupants were illegal and could be summarily abated as nuisances.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 39, granted the respondents’ petitions by Order dated October 29, 2008, relying on DENR reports that the parcels were outside the AFP’s 36-hectare camp area and were alienable and disposable; the RTC concluded respondents were in actual possession and had a clear and unmistakable right needing protection, enjoined the AFP from eviction and ordered reopening of some closed stores. The RTC also cancelled the TRO bond.
The AFP appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a Decision dated August 22, 2013, affirmed the RTC, largely on the basis of the Regional Executive Director (RED) of DENR-Region X’s September 21, 2010 Order granting respondents’ petition for exclusion and segregation (finding the lots alienable and disposable and denying value to the Velez/Pineda deeds for lack of acceptance). The AFP’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied in a July 30, 2014 Resolution.
Separately, the AFP had appealed the RED’s order to the DENR Secretary, who reversed the RED by Decision dated August ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals seriously err in affirming the RTC’s grant of the petitions for injunction (i.e., was issuance of the writ(s) of injunction warranted under the circums...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)