ALEJANDRO RODULFA, PETITIONER, VS. FRANCISCO ALFONSO, JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PANGASINAN, GUILLERMO SORIANO, PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF PANGASINAN, AND PABLO DEL MORAL, RESPONDENTS.

This is an original action for the issuance of a writ of eertlorari
instituted in this Court.

The petitioner Alejandro Rodulfa alleges, in his petition under oath, that in
Civil Case No. 8930 of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, instituted by
him against the respondent Pablo del Moral, on September 19, 1945, he has
demanded the return and reconveyance of 15 parcels of land, with an. aggregate
area of about 31 hectares; that on October 26, 1945, before answering said
complaint, Pablo del Moral, defendant therein, and now one of the respondents in
this case, filed a motion praying for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction against the plaintiff therein, and now petitioner in this case, and
the latter’s agents, attorneys, representatives, and other persons acting on his
behalf, to desist and refrain from molesting, retarding, or otherwise disturbing
the possession of respondent Pablo del Moral of said 15 parcels of land, until
further orders from the court; that on November 7, 1945, without any answer
having been filed to the said complaint, the respondent judge, Honorable
Francisco Alfonso, acting upon said motion of respondent Pablo del Moral,
issued, over and above the objection of herein petitioner, an order providing
that, upon the previous filing of a bond by respondent Pablo del Moral, in the
sum of Five P5,000, to be approved by the court, said writ of preliminary
injunction would be issued; that on November 8, 1945, respondent Pablo del Moral
filed the bond of P5,000, pursuant to said order, and on the same day, the
respondent judge approved said bond, and the respondent judge forthwith issued
said writ of preliminary injunction; that on the same day, November 8, 1945,
said writ of preliminary injunction was delivered to respondent Guillermo
Soriano, provincial sheriff of Pangasinan, for service; but up to the time of
the filing of the petition in this case, it had not been served upon the
petitioner; that on November 9, 1945, the petitioner received copy of said order
of the respondent judge, dated November 7, 1945, and on the same day, said
petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the said order, praying that it
be set aside and that another be issued denying the motion of respondent Pablo
del Moral for the issuance of a writ of preliminary Injunction; that in* his
motion for reconsideration, the petitioner alleged, under oath, that for many
years previous to the filing of the complaint in said Civil Case No. 8930, and.
up to the present time, he has always been in the material possession of the
parcels of land in question, and working the same; but on November 14, 1945,
said motion for reconsideration was denied by the respondent judge, and copy of
the order was received by herein petitioner on November 15, 1945; and herein
petitioner further alleges that said order dated November 7, 1945, authorising
the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, upon the filing of said bond
in the sum of P5,000, and said order of November 14, 1945, denying petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration, are both illegal and have been issued without or in
excess of the respondent judge’s jurisdiction and with grave abuse of
discretion, and are probably not in accord with law. Petitioner, therefore, asks
that said two (2) orders be declared null and void, as well as the writ of
preliminary injunction issued in said case, and that in the meanwhile, an order
of preliminary injunction be issued by this Court directing respondents, Judge
Francisco Alfonso, and Guillermo Soriano, as provincial sheriff of Pangasinan,
to desist and refrain, until further orders, from enforoing and carrying out
said orders and writ of preliminary injunction.

On December 18, 1945, the three respondents filed their answer to the
petition in this case, and substantially admitted the allegations’ contained in
the first ten (10) paragraphs thereof, denying, however, the allegations
contained in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the petition, as they are mere conclusions
of law.

Respondent Pablo del Moral further alleges that petitioner is now estopped
from questioning the legality of the bond filed in this case, as said petitioner
had filed a motion requesting that he be permitted to put up a counter bond in
the same amount, which, motion was denied by the respondent judge; that the
petitioner himself has admitted that the 15 parcels of land in question had been
registered under the Torrens System in the name of the respondent Pablo del
Moral, and that the latter has been in possession thereof, for, at least, 20
years, although petitioner in his verified motion for reconsideration, stated,
contrary to his express allegations in the original petition filed in this case,
as well as in the complaint filed by him in said Civil Case No. 8930 of the
Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, that he has been in possession of the
lands in question; that after the filing of the petition in this case,
petitioner and his agents have entered the lands in question, on account of
which respondent Pablo del Moral filed a motion for contempt; and that out of
delicacy, the respondent judge, on December 10, 1945, issued an order suspending
the proceedings, after said respondent judge had been served with a copy of the
petition filed in this case. Respondent Pablo del Moral further alleges that, by
the filing of the said bond in the amount of P5,000, the rights and interests of
the petitioner are amply protected and that the respodent Judge had a perfect
right to issue a writ of preliminary injunction in said Civil Case No. 8930, at
the instance of the defendant, as the plaintiff therein was himself the
wrongdoer.

On December 20, 1945, petitioner filed a reply to respondents answer,
claiming that he has not beau, under estoppel by reason of his offer to file a
counter bond; that the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction by the
respondent judge in this case was an abuse of sound judicial discretion; and
that petitioner herein, as plaintiff in said Civil Case Ho. 8930, has not
admitted that the defendant therein, now respondent Pablo del Moral in this
oase, has been in possession of the lands in question; and that as a matter of
fact herein petitioner has taken possession of said lands, as the period of 20
years, for their return and reconveyance, has already elapsed.

In his complaint in said Civil Oase No, 8930, herein petitioner elaims to
have conveyed, since 1924, by means of fictitious documents, to the respondent
the 15 parcels of land in question and authorized him to register the said lands
in respondent’s name, to enable him to raise funds with which to pay an P8,000
indebtedness of the petitioner, subject to the condition that the respondent
would return and reoonvey said lands to the petitioner after 20 years, free from
all liens and encumbrances. On the other hand, in his verified answer filed in
said civil case, in addition to his specific denials, respondent claims to have
acquired since 1924, by purchase, some of the lands in question from said
petitioner, and the rest from other parties, in an absolute manner, in good
faith and for good and valuable consideration.

There are certain facts, which, according to the record in this case,
including the pleadings in said Civil Case No, 8930, cannot be successfully
disputed, to wit, that the 15 parcels of land in question had been registered in
the name of the respondent Pablo del Moral, under the Torrens System; that the
respondent has been in possession of said lands for more than 20 years; that
after the filing of the complaint in said civil case No. 8930, the plaintiff
therein, now petitioner in this case, by means of threats and intimidation,
attempted to take possession of all or some of said lands, without waiting for
the decision of the Court in said Civil Case No. 8930, instituted by him against
herein respondent Pablo del Moral, for the return of possession and reconveyance
of said lands; and that there is now a dispute as to the title or ownership of
said 15 parcels of land, between the plaintiff in said Civil Case No, 8930, now
petitioner in this case, on the one hand, and the defendant in said civil case,
now respondent Pablo del Moral in the instant case, on the other.

In the midst of economic hardships and disillusionment, after a long and a
cruel war, the great masses of the people have still retained the consolation of
religious hope, but a considerable portion of the different classes have lost
their faith and look out upon this ruined world and harassed humanity, without
any alleviating vision of that higher and vaster life in whose final justice
and.beauty those ugly ills would disappear. Humanitarian sentiments and moral
values have reached their lowest ebb. And impelled by the socialist indictment
of war and poverty and the biological stress placed upon the struggle for
existence and the competition of life, on the one hand, and urged by cupidity
perhaps, or by some new economic theory claimed to be the supreme achievement of
an enlightened age, on the other, they have become emboldened and take the law
into their own hands, occupying and taking possession of properties belonging to
others, by the use of force, violence and intimidation, which cannot be
justified under any code of law or code of morale in a much vaunted democracy.
Such a situation cannot be tolerated. Governments and laws are established, for
the protection not only of the persons of the inhabitants but also of their
property. And no one can be permitted to enrich himself, with impunity, at the
expense of another.

It is evident that the desperate acts and conduct of said plaintiff, now
petitioner in this case, in attempting to occupy and take possession of all or
some of the lands in question, in the last months of 1945, without waiting for
the final decision of the competent courts in said Civil Case No, 8930, were
unlawful and illegal. During the pendency of said Civil Case No. 8930, he had
absolutely no rl&ht to take the law into his own hands. Laws are made for
the purpose of securing justice; and law cannot, and will not, tolerate any act
of injustice.

As expressly admitted by the petitioner himself in the petition filed in this
case, as well as in the complaint filed by him in said Civil Case No. 8930,
respondent Pablo del Moral has been in possession of the lands in question for
more than 20 years, and that the said lands had been registered in the name of
said respondent. The petitioner is strictly bound by the allegations made by him
in said pleadings, and he cannot now be permitted to contradict and deny or
ignore said facts, by meajas of his said petition for reconsideration and reply,
alleging altogether different facts (Perkins vs. Perkins, 57 Phil.
205).

Injunction, as a rule, will not be granted to take property out of the
possession or control of one party and place it into that of another whose title
has not clearly been established by law. (Devesa vs. Arbes, 13 Phil.,
273; Evangelista vs. Pedreños, 27 Phil., 648; Asombra vs.
Dorado and Gesmundo, 36 Phil. 883; Kabankalan Sugar Co. vs. Rubin, 54
Phil., 645).

The rule that a court should not, by means of a preliminary injunction,
transfer property in litigation from the possession of one party to another, is
more particularly applicable where the legal title is in dispute and the party
having possession asserts ownerhsip in him- self. (Gordillo, et al. vs.
Del Rosario, 39 Phil., 829.)

But the fact that the petitioner might have been in sporadic possession of
all or some of the lands in question, in the last months of 1945, having entered
the same, by means of threats and intimidation, will not prevent the issuance of
a writ of preliminary injunction in favor of herein respondent, as defendant in
said Civil Case No, 8930, in whose name said lands had been registered under the
Torrens system, and who has been in possession thereof, during the last 20
years, as said possession of the petitioner is completely and absolutely
illegal.

Where a person other than the owner from time to time unlawfully enters upon
land and commits depredations thereon, as by cutting wood or bamboo, the true
owner, having possession, can. maintain an action to quiet title and enjoin the
intruder from the repetition of such trespass in the future. The circumstance
that the trespasser in such case also pretends to ownership of the same land is
immaterial, (Rustia vs. Franco, 41 Phil., 280.)

The sole object of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status
quo until the merits can be heard. The status quo is the last
actual peaceable uncontested status which preceded the pending controversy.
(Fredericks vs. Huber, 180 Pa., 572, 37 Atl., 90.)

And this remedy may be Invoked by the defendant, when the plaintiff himself
is the wrong-doer, under the provisions of Rule 60, section 6, of the Rules of
Court.

“Where plaintiff in an injunction suit is himself a wrong-doer in first
invading the rights of defendant whom he seeks to enjoin, and should therefore
be denied all equitable relief on that account, he cannot complain that, instead
of dismissing his complaint, as demanded in defendant’s answer, the court grants
a further relief to defendant by enjoining plaintiff and thus adjudicating all
the equities between the parties growing oat of the facts alleged or litigated,”
(Power vs. Athens. 99 N. Y. 592; 2 N.E., 609; 32 C. J.
footnote.)

The plaintiff’s offer to file a counter-bond was properly denied by the lower
court, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, for the preservation of the
status quo; as the plaintiff’s right and interest, if any, in the
property in. question are amply protected by the bond executed for the issuance
of the writ of preliminary injunction.

The fact that no copy of said bond was given to the plaintiff in said civil
case No. 8930, now petitioner herein, before it was submitted to the court for
approval, cannot and will not invalidate said bond, as the failure to send copy
of the bond to enable said plaintiff to object to the sufficiency was a mere
formal defect, which might be waived, either expressly or impliedly, as by the
filing in said Civil Case No. 8930 of a petition for permission to file a
counterbond.

In cases involving the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, the
exercise of sound judicial discretion by the lower court will not generally be
infierfered with; and the refusal of the trial court to permit the plaintiff in
this case to file a counterbond cannot be considered as an abuse of sound
judicial discretion. bearing in mind particularly the admission made by the
plaintiff himself that sometime in 1945, or thereabouts, he occupied and took
possession of all or some of the lands in question, without waiting for the
final decision of the competent courts in said Civil Case No. 8930, It is a
general principle in equity jurisprudence that “he who oomes to equity must come
with clean hands”, (North Negros Sugar Co. vs. Hidalgo, 63 Phil.,
664.)

There having been no abuse of sound judicial discretion in the issuance of
the writ of preliminary injunction by the respondent judge, in connection with
said orders dated November 7 and 14, 1945, respectively, the petition for
certiorari filed in this case is hereby dismissed, with costs against the
petitioner. So ordered.

Moran, C. J., Ozaeta, Paras, Jaranilla, Feria,
Pablo, Perfecto, Hilado, Bengzon, and Briones, JJ., concur.