A supplemental position paper filed before the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) on May 18, 2026 seeks to dismantle the legal defenses raised by Xavier University – Ateneo de Cagayan and Cebu Landmasters Inc. (CLI) regarding the controversial development of the Manresa property.
The filing, submitted by lawyer Ralph Metrillo, argues that the claims of XU and CLI fail to overcome the specific obligations imposed under the original 1958 Sales Patent covering the Manresa estate.
In the supplemental paper, the group disputed three key defenses advanced by XU and CLI: the alleged indefeasibility of title, the effect of Presidential Decree No. 763 amending Section 121 of the Public Land Act, and the claim that restrictions on the property expired ten years after the issuance of the patent.
According to Metrillo, the registration of the property under the Torrens System does not erase the conditions attached to the original grant issued by the State.
“The patent is the contract between the grantee and the State. XU, as the current registered owner of the property, is privy to the Sales Patent issued in 1958. It is not an innocent third party and is therefore bound by it,” Metrillo said.
The supplemental paper emphasized that XU cannot invoke indefeasibility of title as a shield against obligations expressly stated in the Sales Patent. The filing maintained that ownership registration does not nullify limitations imposed by law and by the patent itself.
The document also challenged XU and CLI’s reliance on Presidential Decree No. 763, which amended Section 121 of the Public Land Act. Metrillo argued that while the decree liberalized restrictions for corporations acquiring public land through secondary transactions, it did not remove the specific limitations imposed under Section 70 of the law.
“Section 121 is a general provision, while Section 70 is a special provision. The amendment to Section 121 did not amend, lift, or remove the restrictions imposed on the original grantee,” Metrillo explained.
The supplemental filing argued that CLI may attempt to rely on the amended Section 121 as a corporate transferee, but XU itself remains directly bound by Section 70, particularly the prohibition against using the land for commercial speculation.
The paper further disputed XU’s assertion that all restrictions on the property expired in 1968, ten years after the issuance of the Sales Patent.
According to the filing, the ten-year expiration period applies only to Sales Patents issued under Sections 22 to 32 of the Public Land Act, not to patents issued under Section 70.
Official records from the DENR Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO), the filing said, confirm that the Manresa property was granted to XU under Section 70.
“It is therefore wrong for XU to claim that in 1968, all administrative restrictions expired,” Metrillo stated.
The supplemental paper insists that because the Manresa Sales Patent originated under Section 70, XU continues to be bound by the obligations attached to the original grant, regardless of subsequent transfers or commercial arrangements.
The dispute over the Manresa property has drawn growing public attention amid concerns over the legality of commercial development on land originally granted for educational and institutional purposes.
