View full case

ROSETTE Y. LERIAS v. CA

FACTS:

Spouses Nicanor E. Yñiguez and Salvacion Oppus-Yñiguez filed a complaint against the Provincial Government of Southern Leyte and Philson Construction and Development Corporation. They claimed ownership of a property covered by TCT No. T-1089 and alleged that Southern Leyte had annotated an adverse claim on the property. They also alleged that Philson Construction started construction on the property without their consent. They sought a declaration of their ownership and for Southern Leyte and Philson Construction to be stopped from performing acts detrimental to their rights.

Southern Leyte denied the ownership claims and argued that the property had been sold to the Province of Leyte in 1918. Southern Leyte claimed to have owned and possessed the property since then.

The parties eventually entered into a compromise agreement, which was approved by the RTC. The court rendered judgment in accordance with the agreement. Southern Leyte filed an action in the Court of Appeals to annul the judgment.

The spouses donated the disputed property to the petitioner and Alfredo O. Yñiguez. TCT No. 1089 was cancelled, and TCT No. T-9542 was issued in the names of the petitioner and Alfredo O. Yñiguez. The petitioner then filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution to execute the judgment in her favor.

The RTC granted the petitioner's motion and issued the writ of execution. Southern Leyte sought a writ of preliminary injunction from the Court of Appeals to stop the RTC from implementing the writ of execution. The Court of Appeals granted the writ of preliminary injunction.

The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, seeking the nullification of the Court of Appeals' resolutions granting the writ of preliminary injunction. She alleged that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion by issuing the writ.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the writ of preliminary injunction was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

  2. Whether Southern Leyte established a present and unmistakable right to be protected by the writ of preliminary injunction.

  3. Whether Southern Leyte's claim of ownership based on tax declaration was superior to the petitioner's ownership registered under the Torrens system.

  4. Whether Southern Leyte's right to remain in possession of the property was established and should be protected.

RULING:

  1. The Court GRANTS the petition for certiorari. The issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction was tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The applicant did not present sufficient evidence to establish a clear and unmistakable right to be protected. Injunction will not issue to protect a right not in existence and which may never arise.

  2. No, Southern Leyte did not establish a present and unmistakable right to be protected. Hence, the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction was improper.

  3. No, Southern Leyte's claim of ownership based on tax declaration was not superior to the petitioner's ownership registered under the Torrens system. The petitioner's ownership under the Torrens system was certain and settled.

  4. No, Southern Leyte's right to remain in possession of the property was either doubtful or non-existent. Thus, the declaration by the Court of Appeals that Southern Leyte was entitled to the continued occupation of the property was unwarranted.

PRINCIPLES:

  • To obtain injunctive relief, the applicant must prove the existence of a clear and unmistakable right to be protected, which is directly threatened by an act sought to be enjoined. (Rule 58, Section 3, Rules of Court)

  • Injunction will not issue to protect a right not in existence and which may never arise, or to restrain an act that does not give rise to a cause of action. (Jurisprudence)

  • The applicant for a writ of preliminary injunction must establish a present and unmistakable right to be protected, as well as a special and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damages.

  • The issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is not proper when the plaintiff's right is doubtful or disputed.

  • The Torrens certificate of title is evidence of indefeasible ownership and is not subject to collateral attack, but only to a direct attack.

  • The presumption of ownership does not arise in the face of ownership already registered under the Torrens system.

  • Injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly and only in clear and plain cases.

  • The power of the courts to issue injunctions should be exercised with utmost care, caution, and deliberation.

  • Preliminary injunction does not resolve the merits of the main case pending trial.

  • Grave abuse of discretion is the arbitrary or despotic exercise of power that a writ of certiorari can correct.