Not on my land!
Joe and Rose are in possession of a vast tract of land. In 1997, they obtained Certificate of Ancestral Land Claim (CALC) over the land from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
On the strength of said CALC, they secured a building permit and a fencing permit from the building official of the city. Before long, they fenced the premises and began constructing a residential building thereon.
Months after, Joe and Rose received a letter from the Zone Administrator of the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (Peza), informing them that the house they built had overlapped Peza’s territorial boundary.
The Administrator advised them to demolish the same within 60 days from notice. Otherwise, Peza would undertake its demolition at their expense.
Joe ad Rose immediately sought judicial relief. They filed a petition for injunction, with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin Peza from carrying out its threat of demolishing the structures built by them.
Q: What are rights of Joe and Rose as holders of a Certificate of Ancestral Land Claim (CALC)?
A: They possess no greater rights than those enumerated in Par. 1, Section 2, Article VII of DENR Department Administrative Order (DAO) No. 02, Series of 1993, to wit:
The right to peacefully occupy and cultivate the land, and utilize the natural resources therein, subject to existing laws, rules and regulations applicable thereto;
The right of the heirs to succeed to the claims subject to existing rules and regulations;
The right to exclude from the claim any other person who does not belong to the family or clan; and
The right to utilize trees and other forest products inside the ancestral land subject to these rules as well as customary laws.
Joe and Rose being holders of a mere CALC, their right to possess the subject land is limited to occupation in relation to cultivation.
Unlike No. 1, Par. 1, Section 1, Article VII of the same DENR DAO, which expressly allows ancestral domain claimants to reside peacefully within the domain, nothing in Section 2 grants ancestral land claimants a similar right, much less the right to build permanent structures on ancestral lands—an act of ownership that pertains to one who has a recognized right by virtue of a Certificate of Ancestral Land Title.
Q: Was the PEZA correct in refusing to honor the the building and fencing permits issued by the City Building Official to Joe and Rose?
A: Yes. By specific provision of law, it is Peza, through its building officials, which has authority to issue building permits for the construction of structures within the areas owned or administered by it, whether on public or private lands.
Corollary to this, Peza, through its director general may require owners of structures built without said permit to remove such structures within 60 days.
Otherwise, Peza may summarily remove them at the expense of the owner of the houses, buildings or structures.
Q: Are Joe and Rose entitled to a writ of prohibitory injunction?
A: No. Two requisites must concur for injunction to issue: that there must be a right to be protected; and that the acts against which the injunction is to be directed are violative of said right.
Particularly, in actions involving realty, preliminary injunction will lie only after the plaintiff has fully established his title or right thereto by a proper action for the purpose.
Assayed against the above, it clearly appears that Joe and Rose failed to satisfy the second requisite in order that an injunction may issue: that the acts against which the injunction is to be directed, are violative of said right.
Peza acted well within its functions when it demanded the demolition of the structures which respondents had put up without first securing building and fencing permits from the Authority. (Source: Philippine Economic Zone Authority cs. Carantes, et al., G.R. No. 181274, June 23, 2010)
Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis is currently the Dean for the Lyceum of the Philippines University; president of the Philippines Association of Law Schools; and Senior Partner, Gatchalian Castro & Mawis Law Office
