Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

18

RENE KNECHT, petitioner,


vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, LUZ RUBIO, ELIZABETH KEON, UNITED COCONUT
PLANTERS BANK, DBP GOVERNOR RECIO GARCIA, ET AL., respondents.
Facts:
-Knecht and Garcia bought a parcel of land which includes the Tower Hotel whicj was mortgaged to DBP. Knecht and Garcia assumed
the mortgage and DBP approved the assumption.
-DBP foreclosed the mortgage. The property was subsequently sold at a public auction. DBP won as the highest bidder and certificate
of sale was issued. DBP leased the Hotel to Rubio.
-Knecht filed with the trial court an action for the nullification of the foreclosure sale with preliminary injunction. In his prayer for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, Knecht asked the trial court, among other reliefs, to stop the running of the one-year
redemption period and to restore to him the possession and management of the Tower Hotel and all its equipment and facilities.
-The one-year period expired without the petitioner exercising said right and without the trial court issuing a writ of preliminary injunction
to restrain the running of the redemption period.
-Subsequently, the trial court ruled that the petition for the issuance of a preliminary mandatory injunction to restore the possession and
management of the disputed property in his favor is hereby denied.
-Knech filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction with the CA. CA denied
Issue:
W/N writ of preliminary mandatory injunction (WPMI) must be issued
Ruling:
No. The WPMI must not be issued
-For petitioner to be entitled to the injunctive writ, he must show that there exists a right to be protected and the facts against which the
injunction is directed are violative of said right
Purpose of WPMI:
to preserve the status quo, which is the last actual peaceable uncontested status that preceded the pending controversy
-it is a settled rule in this jurisdiction that a WPMI is not proper where its purpose is to take property out of one's possession and place
the same in the hands of another without a prima facie showing of the title of the latter
The status quo before petitioner filed his complaint for nullification of foreclosure sale was that respondent DBP was in possession of
the Tower Hotel. Thus, it cannot be said that petitioner Knecht was in actual, peaceful and uncontested possession of the Tower Hotel
at the time he filed his complaint with the trial court.
SC ruled that the act of Knecht of registering a notice of lis pendens over the disputed property with the Registry of Deeds, which notice
will bind any prospective buyer to the outcome of the civil case pending before the trial court adequately protected of whatever rights
Knecht may still have over the Tower Hotel.