IMAM SAHIM (MORO), PETITIONER VS. GREGORIO D. MONTEJO, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BASILAN CITY AND DOMINGO ALVAREZ, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for certiorari to review and set aside the order
of preliminary (mandatory) injunction issued by respondent Judge in
Civil Case No. 256 of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga,
entitled “Domingo Alvarez vs. Imam Sahim,” and the subsequent order
denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

The action below is for recovery of possession of a parcel of land
with an area of 4.3475 hectares, more or less, the same being a portion
of lot No. 410 of the Jamitan cadastre, Basilan City, covered by Free
Patent application No. 64825 (E-41089) of plaintiff and now respondent,
Domingo Alvarez. The complaint was filed by him as early as November
1950, but for reasons which do not appear in the record now before us,
was still pending trial when the first of the orders now under review
was issued on February 27, 1959. It is alleged in the answer to the
petition, however, that respondent had rested his case since February
17, 1959, but that the hearing was not concluded because of
petitioner’s requests for continuance.

Prior to the issuance of the orders complained of, several
petitions for preliminary injunction, mandatory in character, had been
filed by respondent Albarez, seeking to obtain possession of the land
in dispute during the pendorcy of the action, but they had invariably
been turned down. It was only after he had finished, as aforested, the
presentation of his evidence that, upon a new petition, the court
granted it in an order which reads as follows:

“There is a petition for preliminary injunction. The
case appears to have been initiated about three years ago and without
any progress the case is still pending. The plaintiff has manifested
thru counsel that it would be for the best interest if a writ of
preliminary injunction be issued.

“It appearing that the
petition is proper, the plaintiff is given possession of the property
by means of preliminary injunction upon posting a bond of P4,000.00 in
order to insure whatever damages may be incurred by or damages which
would accrue to the defendant.

“SO ORDERED.”

Petitioner invokes the general rule that injunction will not be
granted to take property out of the possession or control of one party
and place it in that of another whose title has not been clearly
established. This doctrine proceeds on the theory that possession is
presumed to be in good faith and, if in concept of owner, that the
possessor has a just title. It is only in actions for forcible entry
and in ejectment cases where an appeal is taken, that the Civil Code
expressly affords the remedy of preliminary mandatory injunction to the
plaintiff (Arts. 539 and 1674), having in view the summary nature of
the proceeding and the fact that the only question involved is that of
actual or material possession. This provision of the Civil Code,
however, is not meant to exclude absolutely other cases where for
compelling reasons the court may, in the proper exercise of discretion,
grant a mandatory inivnetion to place the plaintiff, pendente lite, in possession of the real property sought to be recovered.

Respondent Judge properly exercised such discretion here. The land
in litigation was part of the public domain. It was the subject of
conflicting homestead applications under the Public Land Act by
petitioner Imam Sahim and respondent Domingo Alvarez. On June 8, 1951
the conflict was decided by the Director of Lands, who dismissed
petitioner’s application and gave due course to that of respondent. The
former appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources,
who affirmed the decision of the Director of Lands on September 16,
1952. Petitioner moved to reconsider, but on May 5, 1954 his motion was
denied. Still not satisfied, he elevated the case to the Office of the
President, which likewise affirmed the decision on July 22, 1957.
Copies of the decisions of the different officials above mentioned were
submitted by petitioner as evidence in the court below, and it was
presumably on the strength thereof that the order of injunction was
issued.

Considering that with regard to the disposition of lands of the
public domain the acts of the corresponding executive officials, done
in the exercise of their jurisdiction I under the Public Land Act and
with proper observance of due process, are generally not subject to
judicial review; and considering further that in spite of the favorable
decisions of said officials respondent Alvarez has not, for a long
time, been able to take possession of the land awarded to him, we are
of the opinion that the issuance of the injunctive order complained of
was not a grave abuse of discretion.

The writ prayed for is denied, and the order of preliminary
injunction issued by us on August 15, 1959, is dissolved. Costs against
petitioner.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera Paredes, Dizon, and Regala, JJ., concur.