Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Mendoza
Provisional Remedies and Special Civil Actions
September 2013
Preliminary Injunction
The Court in the case of Heirs of Melencio Yu and Talinanap Matualaga vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 182371, September 4, 2013 ruled that:
Finally, granting that there is strong evidence to prove private respondents ownership
and possession of the disputed lot, still, they are not entitled to the grant of preliminary
mandatory injunction. As the damages alleged by them can be quantified, it cannot be
considered as "grave and irreparable injury" as understood in law.
As previously held in Golding v. Balatbat , the writ of injunction
should never issue when an action for damages would adequately compensate the
injuries caused. The very foundation of the jurisdiction to issue the writ rests in the
probability of irreparable injury, the inadequacy of pecuniary compensation, and the
prevention of the multiplicity of suits, and where facts are not shown to bring the case
within these conditions, the relief of injunction should be refused.
Expropriation
The Court in Republic of the Philippines vs. BPI, G.R. No. 203039, September 11,
2013 ruled that:
No actual taking of the building is necessary to grant consequential damages.
Consequential damages are awarded if as a result of the expropriation, the remaining
property of the owner suffers from an impairment or decrease in value. The rules on
expropriation clearly provide a legal basis for the award of consequential damages.
Section 6 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court provides:
x x x The commissioners shall assess the consequential damages to the property not
taken and deduct from such consequential damages the consequential benefits to be
derived by the owner from the public use or public purpose of the property taken, the
operation of its franchise by the corporation or the carrying on of the business of the
corporation or person taking the property. But in no case shall the consequential
benefits assessed exceed the consequential damages assessed, or the owner be
deprived of the actual value of his property so taken.
Declaratory Relief
The Court in Republic of the Philippines vs. Herminio Harry Roque , G.R. No.
204603, September 24, 2013 ruled that:
Case law states that the following are the requisites for an action for declaratory relief:
first , the subject matter of the controversy must be a deed, will, contract or other written
instrument, statute, executive order or regulation, or ordinance; second , the terms of
said documents and the validity thereof are doubtful and require judicial construction;
third , there must have been no breach of the documents in question; fourth , there must
be an actual justiciable controversy or the "ripening seeds" of one between persons
whose interests are adverse; fifth , the issue must be ripe for judicial determination; and
sixth , adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms of action or
proceeding.
Based on a judicious review of the records, the Court observes that while the first,
second, and third requirements appear to exist in this case, the fourth, fifth, and sixth
requirements, however, remain wanting.
As to the fourth requisite, there is serious doubt that an actual justiciable controversy or
the "ripening seeds" of one exists in this case.
Finally, as regards the sixth requisite, the Court finds it irrelevant to proceed with a
discussion on the availability of adequate reliefs since no impending threat or injury to
the private respondents exists in the first place.