Rivera v. Abungan

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 240796. April 5, 2022.]

ROSALINA RIVERA, petitioner, vs.ATTY. ANSELMO ABUNGAN IN HIS CAPACITY AS ASST. SECRETARY OF LEGAL SERVICES OF THE DENR, COASTAL HIGHPOINT VENTURES, INC., AND ATTY. ANASTACIO MUNTUERTO, JR., respondents.

NOTICE

v Sirs/Mesdames :

 

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 5, 2022which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 240796 (Rosalina Rivera v. Atty. Anselmo Abungan in his capacity as Asst. Secretary of Legal Services of the DENR, Coastal Highpoint Ventures, Inc., and Atty. Anastacio Muntuerto, Jr.). — Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision 2 dated February 22, 2017 and Resolution 3 dated June 25, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 08445. The CA denied petitioner Rosalina Rivera's (Rivera) Petition for Certiorari to annul the Resolution 4 dated December 2, 2009 and Clarificatory Order 5 dated June 14, 2011 of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) in DENR Case No. 8769.

Facts of the Case

This case concerns the location of the Point Bagacay Lighthouse Reservation (Reservation). 6

The Point Bagacay Lighthouse was erected in Barangay Catarman, Liloan, Cebu by virtue of Executive Order No. 60 (EO No. 60) dated July 28, 1903 issued by then Civil Governor of the Philippines William Howard Taft. 7

The Reservation covers Lot Nos. 1, 2, and 2152. The Point Bagacay Lighthouse itself only occupied a portion of the Reservation. The unused portions were occupied by Acoje Mining, Inc., 8 and by the Jugalbot Heirs. 9 aScITE

Realizing that the extent of the area reserved has become anachronistic 10 and in an effort to amend EO No. 60, several cadastral surveys were conducted.

In 1976, the Bureau of Lands identified Lot Nos. 1 and 2 as the building site of Point Bagacay Lighthouse. 11 In 1994, however, a reinvestigation conducted by the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office of Cebu * (CENRO Cebu) arrived at a different conclusion. The CENRO Cebu Reinvestigation Report revealed the Point Bagacay Lighthouse stands on Lot No. 2152. Meanwhile, Lot Nos. 1 and 2 are owned by Acoje Mining, Inc. 12 The CENRO Cebu Reinvestigation Report likewise provided a recommendation to release from the Reservation the portion of Lot No. 2152 occupied by the Jugalbot Heirs since time immemorial. 13

* Note from the Publisher: Written as "Community Environment and Natural Resources of Cebu" in the official document.

As a result, CENRO Cebu subdivided Lot No. 2152 into two smaller lots: Lot No. 2152-A, the unused portion occupied by the Jugalbot Heirs; and, Lot No. 2152-B, or the actual building site of Point Bagacay Lighthouse. 14

On May 20, 1994, the Jugalbot Heirs filed a Free Patent Application over Lot No. 2152-A. In this proceeding, the Jugalbot Heirs were represented by Rivera. The Philippine Coast Guard (PCG), as the agency in charge of the Reservation, appeared as adverse claimant. The parties eventually came into agreement that the Jugalbot Heirs would donate five thousand square meters (5000 sqm.) of Lot No. 2152-A to PCG in order to increase the size of Lot No. 2152-B. CENRO Cebu approved the agreement and amended the cadastral survey to reflect the expanded area of Lot No. 2152-B. 15

On February 28, 1996, while the Jugalbot Heirs' Free Patent Application was pending, Rivera in her personal capacity, filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaue City an application for land registration of Lot No. 2152-A. The RTC granted Rivera's application and ordered the issuance of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 1649 in her favor. As a consequence, the Jugalbot Heirs' Free Patent Application was rejected. 16

Rivera then sold Lot No. 2152-A to the Gothong Heirs. OCT No. 1649 was cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-117869 (TCT No. T-117869) was issued in favor of the Gothong Heirs. 17 In the meantime, Acoje Mining sold Lot Nos. 1 and 2 to Coastal Highpoint Ventures, Inc. (CHVI). 18

On February 16, 2006, CHVI as represented by Atty. Anastacio Muntuerto, Jr. (Atty. Muntuerto, Jr.), requested the Office of the President to review the transfer of the Reservation to Rivera. Similarly, the Sangguniang Bayan of Lilo-an, Cebu passed Resolution No. 06-049 dated April 3, 2006, requesting the Office of the President to recover possession and ownership of the Reservation. 19

Pursuant to these entreaties, the Surveys Division of DENR-VII was ordered to determine the exact boundaries of the Reservation and to establish all cadastral lots and structures found within. Notices were sent to CHVI for Lot Nos. 1 and 2, and to the Gothong Heirs for Lot. No. 2152-A. 20

DENR Secretary's Resolution and Clarificatory Order

DENR Secretary Jose Atienza, Jr. issued a Resolution 21 dated December 2, 2009 ordering the cancellation of the Certificate of Titles issued over the parcels of land covered by EO No. 60:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Regional Executive Director, DENR-Region VII, Cebu City is hereby ordered to institute the appropriate action for the cancellation of the titles covering all lots found within the proclamation and its eventual reversion to the mass of the public domain. HEITAD

SO ORDERED. 22 (Emphasis supplied)

Confusion arose. The coverage of the Reservation could not be identified because EO No. 60 only mentioned a sixth order light tower as the starting point or tie point of the Reservation. However, there are two lighthouses in the area. The first lighthouse tower is the Old Lighthouse Station or the "Bantayan ng Hari" established in 1857 during the Spanish Colonial Period, while the second lighthouse tower is the new "Point Bagacay Light Station" established in 1904 by the Americans. 23 Hence, the difficulty in determining which of the two lighthouses is being referred to in EO No. 60 as the starting point or tie point in the technical description.

In response to a letter-request sent by CHVI, represented by its counsel Atty. Muntuerto, Jr., the DENR issued on June 14, 2011 a Clarificatory Order: 24

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Resolution, dated 02 December 2009 of this Office is REITERATED and further clarified to mean that the area covered by the Point Bagacay Lighthouse Reservation under Executive Order No. 60 is Lot No. 2152 (65,592 sq. m.) of Pls-823, Lilo-an Public Land Subdivision. Hence, the Regional Executive Director, DENR-Region VII, Cebu City, is further directed to institute the cancellation of the title and its derivative title/s covering the said lot in coordination with the Office of the Solicitor General.

Further, the Personnel Investigation Division (PID) of the Legal Service of this Office is directed to conduct administrative investigation with DENR personnel involved in the irregular approval of subdivision plan and its amendments for Lot 2152 as well as on their participation in the issuance of OCT No. 1649 covering the said lot.

SO ORDERED. 25 (Emphasis supplied)

The DENR denied Rivera's Motion for Reconsideration. On May 31, 2013, the execution and implementation of the Clarificatory Order was directed. The DENR, once again, denied Rivera's Motion for Reconsideration in an Order dated March 12, 2014.

Ruling of the CA

Rivera filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA. Mainly, she argued that the DENR committed grave abuse of discretion when the Clarificatory Order reversed and modified the December 2, 2009 Resolution. It was also averred that absent any substantial interest in the case, Atty. Muntuerto, Jr. and CHVI do not have the legal standing to intervene. Further, Rivera claims that the case is not subject to administrative due process, therefore ripe for judicial intervention. 26

The CA rendered its Decision 27 dated February 22, 2017, denying Rivera's Petition for Certiorari for lack of merit. 28

The CA ruled that Atty. Muntuerto, Jr. and CHVI both have legal standing to intervene. CHVI has a direct interest in the outcome of the case as the owner of Lot Nos. 1 and 2. On the other hand, Atty. Muntuerto Jr. represents himself in his personal capacity as a civic leader and taxpayer. He also appeared before the DENR as the representative of CHVI. Atty. Muntuerto Jr. may likewise be heard in behalf of his client especially since he has not raised any arguments different from those already pleaded by CHVI. 29 ETHIDa

According to the CA, it was in fact Rivera who does not have the legal standing to institute the Petition for Certiorari. Records show that the Jugalbot Heirs have already revoked her authority as their Attorney-in-Fact. It also cannot be said that she has an interest on Lot 2152-A because, as admitted by Rivera herself, she already sold the subject lot to the Gothong Heirs. 30

Furthermore, the case should have been elevated to the Office of the President to determine whether the Clarificatory Order is indeed contrary to the findings of the DENR Secretary in his December 2, 2009 Resolution. 31

Lastly, the CA found no error in the issuance of the Clarificatory Order. Records show that the conclusions stated in the Clarificatory Order were based on the following reliable sources: (1) the language of EO No. 60; (2) August 25, 2010 report of the Investigating Team; (3) opinion of PCG; and (4) May 19, 1994 reinvestigation conducted by CENRO Special Land Investigator Luisito G. Adobas.

Rivera moved for reconsideration, which the CA denied in its Resolution 32 dated June 25, 2018.

Petition for Review on Certiorari

Undeterred, Rivera filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari33 before the Court.

Rivera assails the validity of the Clarificatory Order for having been issued by the DENR Assistant Secretary to the Legal Services without authority. She also argued that the Clarificatory Order reversed the December 2, 2009 Resolution which, in turn, already attained finality when no Motion for Reconsideration was filed. 34 Ultimately, Rivera prays for the Court to uphold the December 2, 2009 Resolution and rule that the Point Bagacay Lighthouse Reservation covers Lot Nos. 1 and 2, and not Lot No. 2152. 35

In its Comment 36 dated June 28, 2019, public respondent Atty. Anselmo Abungan in his capacity as the Assistant Secretary for Legal Services of the DENR (public respondent), through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), asserted that the DENR correctly allowed CHVI to intervene as owner of Lot Nos. 1 and 2, and Atty. Muntuerto as counsel of CHVI. Public respondent also argued that Rivera failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Meanwhile, CHVI and Atty. Muntuerto Jr. maintained that Rivera is not a real party-in-interest. 37

Rivera filed a Reply with Manifestation 38 dated September 3, 2019. Mainly, Rivera averred that the DENR reclassified Lot No. 2152 as alienable and disposable. 39 Moreover, her title over the subject lot already attained finality and had become indefeasible. Lastly, Rivera maintained that the absence of certificates of title in favor of the government removes the subject lots from the scope of the Reservation. 40

Ruling of the Court

The Petition has no merit.

In resolving this Petition, it is best to be guided by the following: (1) the rule on real parties-in-interest; and (2) the doctrine on exhaustion of administrative remedies. AIDSTE

The Rule on Real Parties-in-Interest

Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court 41 requires every action to be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party-in-interest who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit. Real interest must be one which is present and substantial, as distinguished from a mere expectancy, or a future, contingent, subordinate or consequential interest. 42 Being a real party-in-interest is based on the plaintiff's own right to the relief sought. 43

Note that the practical effect of defining the scope of the Reservation is the reversion to the public domain of the unused lots, pursuant to EO No. 60, as amended.

Should the Court grant Rivera's Petition, the Reservation will cover the lots presently owned by CHVI. Otherwise, it covers Lot 2152-A now owned by the Gothong Heirs. In either way, Rivera stands nowhere. Her perceived and anticipated benefit or injury from the suit is clearly wanting.

It is also not sufficient for Rivera to claim that her real interest lies on the warranty against eviction she had given to the Gothong Heirs, who bought Lot 2142-A from her. 44 The injury is merely speculative since, as admitted by Rivera herself, the Gothong Heirs already sold the subject lot to third persons "in good faith and for value." 45

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Rivera contends that the erroneous interpretation of the December 2, 2009 Resolution removes the case from the ambit of administrative due process and makes the controversy ripe for judicial intervention. 46

The Court does not agree.

The President's power of review emanates from his power of control over the executive departments, bureaus, and offices enshrined under Section 17 of Article VII of the Constitution. 47 Distrust of an administrative agency alone unsupported by concrete evidence is not sufficient reason to dispense with the doctrine of administrative remedies. Furthermore, as succinctly explained by the CA:

A recognized exception to the doctrine is when the public respondent is a Department Secretary whose acts as an alter ego of the President bear the implied and assumed approval of the latter. By analogy, then, the act of a subordinate that allegedly runs counter to the findings of a Department Secretary does not bear the implied approval of the President. It is with more reason, therefore, that public respondent's act should have been brought to the attention of the Office of the President for review. By doing so, the Office would have been given the chance to remedy the questioned act of its subordinate and realign the same to conform to the alleged tenor of the original decision. 48

To emphasize, in no way will the Court condone the circumvention of the mechanisms of administrative appeals on mere suspicion of an agency's integrity. Rivera should have filed an appeal to the Office of the President before she proceeded with the Petition for Certiorari. EcTCAD

Nonetheless, there is no truth that the Clarificatory Order altered, modified, and reversed the DENR Secretary's December 2, 2009 Resolution. The said Resolution simply mentioned the location of the existing Bagacay Lighthouse based on its triangulation as well as its latitude and longitude. The Resolution did not declare the tie-point nor did it make any reference to the location of the Reservation. The respective areas claimed by Rivera and CHVI were designated in the December 2, 2009 Resolution as EO No. 60, without reference as to the tie-point of the Reservation. To implement the December 2, 2009 Resolution, therefore, the Clarificatory Order was essential. 49

While the circumstances discussed above are sufficient to dismiss the Petition, the Court deems necessary to settle once and for all the issue on the tie-point (starting point) of the Reservation.

The Tie-Point of the Reservation

The Court agrees with the DENR and the CA that the tie-point of the Reservation is the Bantayan ng Hari Lighthouse built during the Spanish Colonial Period.

The language of EO No. 60 is instructive:

An area surrounding the present sixth-order light tower and inclosed by metes and bounds as follows: Beginning at a point north forty seven meters from the center of the present sixth-order light tower, thence north seventy-seven degrees fifty one minutes west three hundred meters, thence south eighteen degrees thirty minutes west three hundred meters, thence south seventy-seven degrees fifty one minutes east one hundred and seventy meters to the shoreline, thence along said shoreline in a north easterly and northerly direction to a point on the prolongation of the northern boundary of the reservation, thence north seventy-seven degrees fifty-one minutes west twenty-five meters more or less to the point of beginning. The above hearings are magnetic in the year nineteen hundred and three. 50 (Emphasis supplied)

First. EO No. 60 refers to a sixth-order light tower. Of the two existing lighthouses in the Reservation, the PCG observed that the Bantayan ng Hari Lighthouse is the one consistent with the design of a sixth-order light tower. The Bagacay Point Light Station, built during the American period, is a third-order lighthouse. 51

Second. Using the Bantayan ng Hari Lighthouse as the tie-point, the Reservation is shown to be bounded by the sea.

An Investigating Team issued a report dated August 25, 2010 stating the differences between the area of the Reservation as reckoned from both the Bantayan ng Hari Lighthouse and the Bagacay Point Light Station, thus:

xxx xxx xxx

3. PLAN #2 — showing the relative positions of E.O. No. 60 when plotted within PLAN #1 using the Old Spanish Lighthouse or the 'Bantayan ng Hari' as the Sixth-Order Lighthouse reveals the following:

• The area of E.O. No. 60 is more or less equivalent to Lot No. 2152 (A = 65,592 sq. m.); Lot 1597 (A = 4,931 sq. m.) portion of Lot 1, Psu-187052; and Lot 2287 (A =10,464 sq. m.) portion of Lot 2, Psu-187052, all of Pls-823, Lilo-an Public Land Subdivision;

• Actual ground surveys re: existing concrete fences conform with the technical descriptions of Lot 2152, Pls-823;

• Corner 17 of Lot 2152, Pls-823 was used as common point while corners 4, 14 & 15 of Lot 2152 were used for checking;

• Technical descriptions of E.O. No. 60 specifically 'Along the shoreline in North-Easterly and Northerly direction to a point on the prolongation of the Northern boundary of the reservation' is also conforming with the existing shoreline"; 52 (Emphasis supplied)

In contrast, the Reservation becomes landlocked when the reference for the tie-point is the American-built Point Bagacay Light Station:

4. PLAN #3 — showing the relative positions of E.O. No. 60 when plotted within PLAN #1 using the 1904 Bagacay Point Light Station as the Sixth-Order Lighthouse reveals the following:

• It overlaps with portion of Lot 2289, Pls-823, an equivalent to Lot 2, Psu-187052 portion now a consolidation-subdivision project, Pcs-07-004858 approved dated 22, 2006 (sic) owned by the [CHVI]. AScHCD

• Technical descriptions of E.O. No. 60 specifically "Along the shoreline in a North-Easterly direction to a point on the prolongation of the northern boundary of the [Reservation]" did not [conform] with the existing shore lines but it rather manifests that it is 185.24 m. away from the said existing shore line." 53 (Emphasis supplied).

These findings regarding the location of the Reservation relative to its tie-point assumes particular significance because EO No. 60, as quoted above, specifically described the Reservation as running along the shoreline. 54

Third. The metes and bounds of the Reservation were determined based on a structure already present or existing at the time EO No. 60 was issued. Referring to the Point Bagacay Light House Station as the tie-point implies the following circumstances: (1) the metes and bounds were based on a structure that had not yet come into existence; or (2) that the structure was built first and then the area of the Reservation around it was subsequently determined. As perfectly described by the CA, these circumstances are not only highly unlikely; they are contrary to usual practice and offensive to common sense. 55

Lot No. 2152-A is part of the Reservation

The mistaken assumption that Lot No. 2152 is not covered by the Reservation proceeds from the report of Deputy Public Land Inspector Julian Blancas. The pertinent portion of the report reads:

That the land occupied by the Bagacay Lighthouse Station is identified to be Lot Nos. 1 and 2, Psu-187052, with a total area of 23.4226 hectares and under [EO No. 60] dated July 28, 1903.

That during the relocation survey of Psu-187052 made by this Office, it was verified and ascertained that portions of Lot 1 and 2 are occupied and actually possessed by the Acoje Mining Co., Inc. and the remaining portions was [sic] surveyed under SWO-VI-2, Amd. with an area of 8.0987 hectares, more or less. It has been verified further in the ocular inspection and investigation in the premises of the land that the whole area under SWO-VI-2, AMD, were actually occupied and possessed by the following persons listed hereunder with corresponding tax declarations. [x x x] HESIcT

That the occupation and cultivation of the claimants herein commenced since time immemorial thru their predecessors-in-interest. They are bonafide occupant of the land and had introduced considerable improvements thereon, such as seasonal crops, few coconut trees, Kamansi Trees, Colo Trees, Banana Hills and vegetables. 56 (Emphasis Supplied)

Apparently, the description and size of Lot Nos. 1 and 2 wrongly identified by the Deputy Public Land Inspector as the building site of the Bagacay Lighthouse Station coincides with the parcels of land decreed in favor of Acoje Mining:

This is an application for registration of two (2) parcels of land, namely: Lots Nos. 1 and 2 (Psu-187052) with an area of 88,064 sq. m. and 146,162 sq. meters, respectively, [total area of 23.4226 hectares] both situated at Barrio Catarman, Liloan, Cebu, Philippines, filed by the Acoje Mining Company, Inc., thru its Super-intendent, Mr. Federico Gimenez, Jr.

xxx xxx xxx

Said applicant and its predecessors-in-interest have openly, publicly, continuously, adversely, notoriously and exclusively possessed these two (2) parcels of land in question in concept as owners thereof since time immemorial, at least thirty (30) years, prior to the filing of this application. Consequently, applicant is entitled to a conclusive presumption of grant from the State. 57

Upon reinvestigation by the CENRO Cebu, the error was corrected as follows:

That during the conduct of the ocular inspection and investigation, the old and new Lighthouse of Bagacay is found on Lot No. 2152 which is not part of Lot No[s]. 1 & 2 PSU 187052 which has an Executive Proclamation issued way back July 28, 1903.

That per verification made by the undersigned basing the Cadastral Map of Liloan, Lot Nos. 1 and 2 is equivalent to Lot Nos. 2289 and 1596 PSU 187052 Liloan Public Land Subdivision x x x Lot Nos. 1 and 2 was occupied & possessed by the Acoje Mining so many years had past and presently is allegedly owned by the Ayala [Group] of Companies. 58 (Emphasis supplied)

Indeed, the Reservation described in EO No. 60 is actually, and in reality, Lot No. 2152.

On public lands and reservations

A reservation is defined as any tract or tracts of land of the public domain proclaimed by the President of the Philippines for the use of the government or any of its branches or instrumentalities or of the inhabitants thereof, for public or quasi-public uses. 59 To segregate portions of the public domain as a reservation, all that is needed is a presidential proclamation to that effect. A court judgment is not necessary to make the proclamation effective or valid. The tract or tracts of land reserved shall be non-alienable and shall not be subject to sale or other disposition until again declared alienable. 60 caITAC

Consistent with the foregoing, Lot No. 2152 found to be reserved under EO No. 60 shall be non-alienable and shall not be subject to sale or other disposition until again declared alienable. It is not open to private appropriation or disposition and, therefore, could not be an object of cadastral proceedings.

There is no proof that Lot No. 2152 has been reclassified as alienable and disposable. While a municipality has been cadastrally surveyed, it does not follow that all lands comprised therein are automatically released as alienable and disposable land. In this case, the purpose of Plan Csd-072227-004597 was for the amendment of EO No. 60. 61

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED for utter lack of merit. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 08445 is AFFIRMED.

The notice of change of address, by counsel for petitioner, informing the Court of its new address at Room 407, Lim Tian He Bldg., Fuente Osmeña, Capitol Site, Cebu City, Philippines 6000, is NOTED; and the requests that all orders, resolutions, notices, and other pleadings be furnished at said address, is GRANTED.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 16-33.

2. Id. at 37-58; penned by Associate Justice Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig with Associate Justices Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Edward B. Contreras, concurring.

3. Id. at 59-60.

4. Id. at 101-110.

5. Id. at 113-125.

6. Id. at 101.

7. Id.

8. Id. at 187.

9. Id. at 39.

10. Id. at 103.

11. Id. at 102.

12. Id. at 104.

13. Id. at 20.

14. Id. at 39.

15. Id. at 40.

16. Id.

17. Id. at 38.

18. Id.

19. Id. at 40.

20. Id.

21. Id. at 101-110.

22. Id. at 110.

23. Id. at 119.

24. Id. at 113-125.

25. Id. at 124-125.

26. Id. at 43.

27. Id. at 37-58.

28. Id. at 58.

29. Id. at 46.

30. Id. at 47-48.

31. Id. at 49.

32. Id. at 59-60.

33. Id. at 16-33.

34. Id. at 28-29.

35. Id. at 30.

36. Id. at 148-168.

37. Id. at 253-254.

38. Id. at 344-363.

39. Id. at 355.

40. Id. at 352.

41. Section 2. Parties in interest. — A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.

42. Gemina v. Eugenio, 79 Phil. 763, 770-771 (2016).

43. Biraogo v. The Phil. Truth Commission of 2010, 651 Phil. 374, 440 (2010).

44. Rollo, p. 62.

45. Id. at 359.

46. Id. at 48.

47. Mejorado v. Department of Finance, G.R. No. 243324, February 4, 2019.

48. Rollo, pp. 49-50.

49. Id. at 52-53.

50. Id. at 114-115.

51. Id. at 120.

52. Id. at 121.

53. Id. at 121-122.

54. Id. at 53-54.

55. Id. at 53.

56. Id. at 266.

57. Id. at 269-274.

58. Id. at 104.

59. Sec. 83, Public Land Act (Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended).

60. Republic v. Estonilo, 512 Phil. 644, 646 (2005).

61. Rollo, p. 206.