Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
THE COURT DATED DECEMBER 12, 2002 ON DECEMBER 26, 2002 AND
HAVING FILED THE PETITION ON JANUARY 21, 2003.
THE COURT FINDS FURTHER THAT THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT COMMITTED
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO EXCESS OF JURISDCTION IN
ISSUING THE JUNE 4, 2002 AND DECEMBER 12, 2002 ORDERS AS WELL AS
THE JULY 1, 2002 WRIT OF PRELIMINARY PROHIBITORY INJUNCTION. IN
GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS, THE PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER HAS THE
OBLIGATION TO ESTABLISHED THAT SHE IS ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF
DEMANDED BY PRESENTING PROOF THAT THE INVASION OF HER RIGHT IS
MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIAL; THAT THE RIGHT OF THE COMPLAINANT IS
CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE; THAT THERE IS AN URGENT AND PERMANENT
NECESSITY FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT TO PREVENT OR AVOID
SERIOUS DAMAGE/S.
THE PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER FAILED TO PRESENT THE REQUIRED PROOF OR
EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTARY OR TESTIMONIAL. SHE HAS NOT PRESENTED ANY
VALID TITLE OVER THE PROPERTY NOR HAS SHE EVER BEEN IN ACTUAL
CONTROL AND POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY SHE CLAIMS SHE OWN. SHE
JUST OFFERED MERE ALLEGATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. SHE DID
NOT EVEN TESTIFY TO PROVE OWNERSHIP AND ONLY PRESENTED A WITNESS
WHO WAS NOT ABLE TO SHOW A CLEAR RELATIONSHIP WITH HER WHEN
ASKED BY THE TRIAL COURT.
ON THE CONTRARY,
IT IS THE
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT WHO HAS THE TITLE OVER THE PROPERTY.
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER FAILED TO
SHOW THE EXISTENCE OF EXTREME
URGENCY IN THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT OF PRELINARY INJUNCTION.
FURTHER, THE COURT IS TROUBLED AND DISTURBED THAT THE JUDGE IN
THE TRIAL COURT PREMATURELY DECIDED ON THE OWNERSHIP OF THE
PROPERTY BY THE PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER BASED SOLELY ON THE HEARING
ON THE ISSUANCE OF THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TANTAMOUNTING TO
ADJUDICATING THE MAIN ISSUE OF THE CASE WHICH SHOULD BE MADE
AFTER A FULL BLOWN TRIAL.