G. R. No. L-9578. July 30, 1957

On August 24, 1954, respondent  Carlos  Malasig  filed with respondent Court of  First Instance  of Isabela  an action for  recovery of possession with  injunction  against the  petitioners.   The  Court thereupon  granted the  writ of injunction  conditioned on the filing of a bond by respondent Malasig in the sum of P500,00 guaranteed by two or more sureties, to answer  for  damages.   The necessary bond having been filed on  August 31, 1954,  a “writ  of preliminary injunction was issued on September 1,  1954. The  petitioners filed  their answer  to  the  complaint  on November  22.,  1954 and  a  motion  to   dissolve the  preliminary injunction on  December 12, 1954.  Hearing  on the latter motion was held on January 22, 1955 after which the  court denied the same and ordered  the  bond filed  by respondent Malasig to be increased  by P100,00.  The petitioners thereafter re-entered the land  in question; where upon respondent  Malasig  filed a  petition for  contempt against the petitioners.  The latter have now come to this Court with a petition  to  set aside the orders of August 22, 1954  and July 30, 1955, and to dissolve the writ of preliminary  injunction,  with  costs   against  respondent Malasig.

Petitioners argue that respondent court acted with grave abuse of  discretion  in granting  the writ of preliminary injunction ex parte  because (1)  it does not appear  from the complaint that great or irreparable injury would result to respondent  Malasig  before the matter  could be heard on  notice,  (2)  the  complaint  was  not  properly verified and  (3)  the  bond filed  by  respondent Malasig was not  sufficient in  law.  The petitioners  charge  respondent  court  with  having  summarily  and arbitrarily denied petitioner’s motion to dissolve the  writ on the following grounds:  (1)  that the petitioners had offered to file a bond in an amount twice  as that filed by respondent Malasig;  (2) that in the  answer to the complaint, there are allegations that the petitioners were  and had always been  in continuous possession in concept  of  owner of the land  in question,  which called for judicial  inquiry.

This Court finds in  respondent Malasig’s  complaint an allegation that the petitioners were about  to re-enter and re-occupy the land in  dispute  to the  “grave damage and prejudice  of respondent-plaintiff”.  This  phrase  “grave damage”  is  in  form and  substance equivalent to “great or irreparable injury.” The recitals in the verified  complaint show  that great or irreparable  injury would result to the  applicant  (respondent Malasig), in the  following manner:

*      *       *        *        *            *        *         *         *
“5. That sometime in or  about the first week of August, 1954, the defendants by themselves and through other persons, such  as Dionisio  Macadangcadang and  one  Martin nicknamed Bulbulagao, tried again to re-enter, re-occupy the land described in paragraph 2 hereof, but only  succeeded  in  temporarily possessing and occupying a portion of the land;
“6. That the defendants with the aid and active cooperation of the persons referred to in the preceding Paragraph again  threaten and are about to re-enter, repossess and re-occupy the land to the grave damage and prejudice of the plaintiff;
“7. That the plaintiff has no other  plain, adequate and speedy remedy to protect his rights as the lawful owner of  the land and to render  effectual  any relief which he is entitled under the law except the issuance by  this Honorable Court  of a writ  of preliminary injunction ordering the defendants to desist and to refrain from entering the land described  in Paragraph 2 hereof and/ or occupying, possessing or cultivating the same.”
 *      *       *        *        *            *        *         *         *

In the verification of the complaint, the affiant, attorney for respondent Malasig,  stated that the  allegations  contained therein are true  to  the  best of his knowledge, information and belief.  Its sufficiency will not be looked into herein, as  it has not been questioned  in the lower court.

As to the contention that respondent Malasig did  not bind himself as principal in the bond filed for the issuance of the writ in question, we find that in Annexes “C” and “I” said respondent had bound himself as principal,  solidarily liable with the two .sureties for the damages  that the petitioners may” sustain because  of said writ.   There is in  the  records  an  order  of  respondent  court dated January  8,  1955, relative  to the  motion  to  dissolve  the writ.  We  observe  that said  order allowed  the  parties to present  evidence of  actual  possession  and  cultivation of the land in question  for the year 1954-1955.  On  January 22,  1955, the  date of “hearing, the petitioners moved the court to allow them to double the amount of the bond filed by respondent Malasig;  they  did not present evidence to support  their allegation that they had  actual possession. The court,  finding no basis for disturbing its order granting the writ, denied their  bid to double the amount of the bond,  as well as their  motion to dissolve.

It having  been  shown  that  respondent  Malasig has alleged  ownership and possession under a Torrens  Title, and the petitioners  had dispossessed  him  of the land  in question by  force and intimidation,  and  at the hearing held for  the  very  purpose  of  settling the question  of possession, no  evidence was adduced to destroy the finding that respondent Malasig is the registered owner, the orders complained  of are well founded.

Wherefore,  the present petition is  hereby dismissed and the writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued against  respondent court dissolved.   So ordered, with costs against  the petitioners.

Bengzon,   Padilla,  Montemayor,  Reyes,   A.,  Bautista Angelo,  Conception,  Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.