l\epublic of tbe ~bilippineS'

$,Upreme q[ourt
;ffianila

FIRST DIVISION

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a
Resolution dated April 5, 2022 which 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 Certiorari 1 under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision2 dated February
22, 2017 and Resolution3 dated June 25, 2018 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA G.R. SP No. 08445. The CA denied petitioner Rosalina
4
Rivera' s (Rivera) Petition for Certiorari to annul the Resolution
dated December 2, 2009 and Clarificatory Order5 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

- over - fourteen (14) pages ...

67 & 111-B

Rollo, pp. 16-33.

Id. at 37-58; penned by Associate Justice Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig with Associate Justices
Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Edward B. Contreras, concurring.
Id. at 59-60.
4 Id. at 101- 110.
Id. at 11 3-125.
6
Id. at IOI.
Id.
RESOLUTION 2 G.R. No. 240796
April 5, 2022

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

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 of Cebu (CENRO Cebu) arrived at a different
conclusion. The CENRO Cebu Reinvestigation Rep01i 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

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 Comi (RTC) of Mandaue City an application for

- over -
67 & 111-B

Id. at 187.
Id. at 39.
10
Id. at. I 03.
11
Id. at 102.
12 ld. at I 04.
13 Id. at 20.
14 Id. at 39.
15 ld. at 40.
RESOLUTION 3 G.R. No. 240796
April 5, 2022

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 Resolution21 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.

SO ORDERED. 22 (Emphasis supplied)

- over -
67 & 111-B

16 Id.
17
Id. at 38.
is Id.
19
Id. at 40.
20 Id .
21
ld.atl0l-110.
22
Id. at 110.
RESOLUTION 4 G.R. No. 240796
April 5, 2022

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 detennining 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 Decembr 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

- over -
67 & 111-B

23
Id.at119
24
Id. at I I 3-125.
25 Id. at 124-125.
RESOLUTION 5 G.R. No. 240796
April 5, 2022

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 Decision27 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

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 215 2-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

Resolution32 dated June 25, 2018.

- over -
67 & 111-B

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.
RESOLUTION 6 G.R. No. 240796
April 5, 2022

Petition for Review on Certiorari

Undeterred, Rivera filed this Petition for Review on

Certiorari3 3 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 Comment36 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.
Muntue110 Jr. maintained that Rivera is not a real party-in-interest. 37

Rivera filed a Reply with Manifestation38 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.

- over -
67 & 111-B

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
RESOLUTION 7 G.R. No. 240796
April 5, 2022

The Rule on Real Parties-In-Interest

Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court41 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
plaintiffs 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". 4 5

Exhaustion ofAdministrative 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.

- over -
67 & 111-B

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 of2010, 65 I Phil. 374, 440 (20 I 0).
44 Rollo, p. 62.
45 Id. at 359 .
46
Id. at 48.
RESOLUTION 8 G.R. No. 240796
April 5, 2022

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.

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.

- over -
67 & 111-B

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

48
Rollo, pp. 49-50.
49
Id. at 52-53.
RESOLUTION 9 G.R. No. 240796
April 5, 2022

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 bearings
are magnetic in the year nineteen hundred and three. so (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:

xxxx

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:

- over -
67 & 111-B

50 Id.at 114-115.
51 Id.at 120.
RESOLUTION 10 G.R. No. 240796
April 5, 2022

• 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=l0,464 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].

• 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

- over -
67 & 111-B

52
Id. at 121.
53 Id at 12 1-1 22.
54
Id. at 53-54.
RESOLUTION 11 G.R. No. 240796
April 5, 2022

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]

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:

- over -
67 & 111-B

55 Id. at 53.
56
Id. at 266.
RESOLUTION 12 G.R. No. 240796
April 5, 2022

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.

xxxx

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 1s 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
- over -
67 & 111-B

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, 5 12 Phil. 644, 646 (2005).
RESOLUTION 13 G.R. No. 240796
April 5, 2022

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 Osmefia, 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. BUENA
Division Clerk of Cou~1\ 11
/
by:
~
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULO
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
67 & 111-B
AUG 1 2 2022

MIJARES & PARTNERS LAW OFFICE Court of Appeals

Counsel for Petitioner 6000 Cebu City
Room 407, Lim Tian He Building CA-G.R. SP No. 08445)
Fuente Osmefia, Capitol Site
6000 Cebu City

- over -

61
Rollo, p. 206.
RESOLUTION 14 G.R. No. 240796
April 5, 2022

The Solicitor General

134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village
1229 Makati City

VILLANUEVA TABUCANON &

ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE
Counsel for Resp. Coastal Highpoint
Ventures, Inc.
Room 403, Oftana Building
Jasmin cor. M. Cui Streets, Capitol Site
6000 Cebu City

MUNTUERTO MIEL DUYONGCO

CAVADA LAW OFFICE
Counsel for Resp. Atty. A. Muntuerto, Jr.
6/F Muntuerto Building, J. Llorente Street
6000 Cebu City

Office of the Secretary

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Visayas Avenue, Diliman
1101 Quezon City
(DENR Case No. 8769)

Public Information Office (x)

Library Services (x)
Supreme Court
(For uploading pursuant to A.M.
No. 12-7-1-SC)

Philippine Judicial Academy (x)

Supreme Comi

Judgment Division (x)

Supreme Court

67 & 111-B

UR