Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

ISSUE:

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING ABUSE OF


DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 130, CALOOCAN CITY IN GRANTING THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRITS
PRELIMINARY AND MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS.
FACTS:
ROBERT P. SY PURCHASED A PARCEL OF LOT DENOMINATED AS LOT 896 WITH
TCT NO. 87075 LOCATED IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF CALOOCAN, PROVINCE OF
RIZAL ON SEPTEMEBR 1993 FROM MARCELINA SARANGAYA.
HE
CONSTRUCTED THEREON PERMANENT IMPROVEMENTS FOR BUSINESS
PURPOSES.
FIVE YEARS THEREAFTER, MARCELINA GONZALES ALMEIDA
FILED A COMPLAINT FOR QUIETING OF TITLE AND DECLARATION AS VOID AB
INITIO THE SALE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WITH A PRAYER FOR DAMAGES
AND ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION WITH THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CALOOCAN, BRANCH 124.
SHE ALLEGED, AMONG OTHERS, THAT SHE IS THE REAL OWNER OF LOT 896
SUBJECT OF THE SALE BETWEEN DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT AND MARCELINA
SARANGAYA, SHE BEING THE ONLY CHILD AND SOLE HEIR OF THE LATE
SEVERINO GONZALES AND JUANA LIBERTAD, THE ASSIGNEE AND OWNERS OF
SUBJECT LOT, A FORMER FRIAR LAND PRIOR TO WORLD WAR II. SHE
FURTHER ALLEGED THAT HER PARENTS OCCUPIED THE LAND OPENLY AND
CONTINUOUSLY IN THE CONCEPT OF AN OWNER AND THAT WHEN THEY
DIED, SHE, THROUGH HER OVERSEER, ALSO OCCUPIED THE LAND IN THE
SAME MANNER. SHE FAILED TO HAVE A TORRENS TITLE OVER IT FOR LOACK
OF INSTRUCTIONS. SHE ALLEGED EMPLOYMENT OF FALSIFICATION OF
DOCUMENTS THAT RESULTED IN THE ISSUANCE OF TCT NO.42126 THAT
EVENTUALLY LED TO THE ISSUANCE OF TCT NO. 87075 UNDER THE NAME OF
MARCELINA
SARANGAYA,
THE
SELLER
OF
THE
LOT
TO
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT IN THIS CASE.
IN ORDER TO SUPPORT HER PRAYER FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION, SHE ALLEGED THE FOLLOWING:
1. THAT SHE IS THE ABSOLUTE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, SHE BEING
THE SOLE HEIR OF THE REAL OWNERS, MR. AND MRS. SEVERINO
GONZALES, HER LATE PARENTS, THUS, SHOULD BE PROTECTED BY
LAW FORM LAND GRABBERS AND ANY ACT OF DISPOSSESSION;
2. THAT THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT HAS SUBDIVIDED AND HAS
SOLD AND IS CONTINUOUSLY PLANNING TO SELL THE PROPERTY;

3. THAT SHE WILL SUFFER GREAT AND IRREPARABLE DAMAGE IF A


TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WILL NOT BE ISSUED;
4. THAT SHE IS WILLING TO POST THE NECESSARY BOND IN ORDER TO
SECURE THE INTEREST OF THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT SHOULD
LATER ON THE COURTS DECISION IS ADVERSE TO HER INTEREST.
THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT IN HIS ANSWER ASSERTED THAT HE BOUGHT
THE PROPERTY IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR VALUE.
THAT HE WAS IN
CONTINUOUS POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY AND THAT THE TITLE OF THE
LOT HAS NO ANNOTATION OF ANY ENCUMBRANCES WHATSOVER.
THE CASE WAS CONSOLIDATED WITH THE PREVIOUSLY FILED CASE
INVOLVING THE SAME PROPERTY DOCKETED AS CIVIL CASE NO. 17659.
IN THE HEARING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION,
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER PRESENTED SANTOS ALBERCA AS HER WITNESS.
AFTER HEARING, THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ISSUED THE WRIT OF
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. IN THE SHERIFFS REPORT DATED AUGUST 19,
2002, IT REPORTED THAT DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT REFUSED TO COMPLY
WITH THE WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, THUS, ON AUGUST 23, 2002,
THE PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER FILED A MOTION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A
PRELIMINARY MANDATORY INJUNCTION. THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT ON
THE OTHERHAND, FILED A MOTION FOR THE DISSOLUTION OF THE WRIT OF
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION CITING AS GROUNDS THE ABSENCE OF A TORRENS
TITLE IN THE NAME OF THE PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER OVER THE LOT, THE
ABSENCE OF ANY NOTATION OF ENCUMBRANCES IN THE TITLE OF THE LOT
AND HE ALSO CLAIMED THAT HE WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF ANY HEARING FOR
THE ISSUANCE OF THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION NOR FURNISHED A COPY OF
THE ORDER OF THE COURT DATED JUNE 4, 2002.
THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT DISMISS THE MOTION FOR THE DISSOLUTION OF THE WRIT OF
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND ISSUED THE WRIT OF PRELIMINARY
MANDATORY INJUNCTION ORDERING THE SHERIFF TO PUT IN PLACE INSIDE
THE PROPERTY THE PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER. THE RESPONDENT RECEIVED
THE COPY OF THE WRIT OF PRELIMINARY MANDATORY INJUNCTION ON
DECEMBER 26, 2002. ON JANUARY 21, 2003, THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
FILED A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 45 OF THE REVISED RULES
OF COURT WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NULLIFICATION OF THE
JUNE 4, 2002 AND DECEMBER 12, 2002 ORDERS OF THE TRIAL COURT
STATING AMONG OTHERS THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:

1. NO DOCUMENTARY NOR TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED


TO PROVE THE PLAINTIFF/PETITIONERS OWNERSHIP OF THE
PROPERTY;
2. THE PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER FAILED TO SECURE A TORRENS TITLE
OVER THE PROPERTY OVER A SPAN OF 70 YEARS;
3. THE PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER FAILED TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE AS TO
ALLEGATION OF FORGERY IN THE ASSIGNMENT OF SALE
CERTIFICATE OVER THE PROPERTY;
4. THAT THE ORDERS DISPOSED OF THE MAIN ISSUE OF THE CASE VIA
A PRELIMINARY MANDATORY INJUNCTION WITHOUT A FULL BLOWN
TRIAL; AND
5. THAT HE PRUCHASED THE PROPERTY IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR
VALUE.
THE
COURT
OF
APPEALS
RULED
IN
FAVOR
OF
THE
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT AND HELD THAT THE TRIAL COURT
COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN ISSUING THE ASSAILED
ORDERS AND WRITS. THE PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER FILED A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION BUT WAS DENIED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS,
THUS, THIS PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI ON THE FOLLOWING
GROUNDS:
1.

THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE


PETITION FOR CERTIORARI OF THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
AS BEING FILED OUT OF TIME; AND
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NULLIFYING THE ASSAILED
ORDERS AND WRITS ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL TRAIL COURT
OF CALOOCAN CITY.
RULING:
AFTER A METICULOUS REVIEW OF THE RECORDS OF THE CASE, THE COURT
FINDS FOR THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT. RECORDS WILL SHOW THAT
INDEED THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT WAS NOT SERVED WITH A COPY OF
THE COURT ORDER DATED JUNE 4, 2002 NOR WAS HIS COUNSEL SERVED
WITH A COPY OF THE PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A PRELIMINARY
MANDATORY INJUNCTION FILED ON AUGUST 23, 2002. THE COURT FINDS
THAT THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT FILED THE PETITION WELL WITHIN THE
SIXTY (60) DAY PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD AS PROVIDED BY THE RULES OF
COURT, THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT HAVING RECEIVED THE ORDER OF

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.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen