G.R. No.

159124

January 17, 2005

MARCELA GONZALES ALMEIDA, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and ROBERT P. SY, respondents.
CALLEJO, SR., J.
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 September 1993 from Marceline Sarangaya. He constructed
thereon permanent improvements for business purposes. Five years thereafter, Marceline 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 Marceline 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 lack 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 Marceline 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 from 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 whatsoever.
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 other hand, 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.
2.
3.
4.
5.

no documentary nor testimonial evidence was presented to prove the plaintiff/petitioners

ownership of the property;
The plaintiff/petitioner failed to secure a Torrens title over the property over a span of 70 years;
the plaintiff/petitioner failed to produce evidence as to allegation of forgery in the assignment
of sale certificate over the property;
That the orders disposed of the main issue of the case via a preliminary mandatory injunction
without a full blown trial; and
That he purchased 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.
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. NO
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.
It must be stressed that injunction is not designed to protect contingent or future rights, and, as such, the
possibility of irreparable damage without proof of actual existing right is no ground for an injunction.
Injunction is not a remedy to protect or enforce contingent, abstract, or future rights; it will not issue to
protect a right not in esse and which may never arise, or to restrain an action which did not give rise to a
cause of action. There must be an existence of an actual right. Hence, where the plaintiffs right or title is
doubtful or disputed, injunction is not proper.
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 her 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 preliminary 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.