G.R. No. 69854. June 30, 1987
MILAGROS ROSAURO, ROLANDO EBLAMO, SALVADOR SARSONAS, BASILIA ARABI, JOHNNY MEJIA, AURORA POLISTICO, EDGARDO PONCE, FLORENCIO YJAN, FEDERICO LAGAR, ANTONIO AGNAS, REMEDIOS YJAN A…
GANCAYCO, J.:
In a petition for
prohibition, injunction with prayer for preliminary injunction/restraining
order petitioners who are officers and members of “Pargal
Samahang Magkakapitbahay
Inc.,” allege that that they have been in possession for almost 10 to 15
years of Lot 12, Cad. 259, Pasay
Cadastre having constructed their houses thereon; that the same is
patrimonial property as evidenced by the investigation report of Romero T. Salbado dated December 18, 1984 of the Bureau of Lands and
the technical description signed by Felipe Venezuela, Chief Technical and
Service Section[1] of same Bureau; that they filed their
application with the Bureau of Lands for its allocation to them through their
association aforesaid, which application was duly published; that said lot is
not owned by any private individual, more particularly by respondent Hon. Pablo
Cuneta or the Pasay City
Government;[2]
that on December 18, 1984 Salbado recommended
allocation of said lot to petitioners;[3]
that respondent Mayor Cuneta accompanied by several
armed men, suddenly entered said lot accompanied by the demolition squad from the engineering’s office of the city
government, and without due process and legal basis, respondent partially
caused the demolition of some of the houses of petitioners; that respondent is
set in forcibly dispossessing petitioners of said lot, and if unrestrained will
continue in said unlawful act in grave abuse of discretion which will cause
irreparable injury to petitioners; and that they have no appeal or any other
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law. Hence petitioners pray among
others that a restraining order
issue to restrain respondent from
performing any act tending to dispossess petitioners of the lot in question;
after hearing issue a writ of preliminary
injunction; that judgment be rendered prohibiting permanently respondent mayor
from so dispossessing petitioners of the said lot and further pray for any
relief or remedy deemed just and equitable under the law.
In a resolution of
February 18, 1985 the Court required respondent to comment on the petition
within ten (10) days from notice and issued a temporary restraining order
enjoining respondent from committing, doing or performing any act as well as to
cause the commission, doing and/or performing of any act which may tend to
dispossess petitioners of the lot in question.
In the comment filed by
respondent he asserted that he is the owner of said lot having purchased the same
on September 12, 1984 from its registered owner Bombay Merchant Association
Inc., covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 3454 (32057);[4] that under said title its Spanish technical
description is Lot No. 18, but the same has been certified to be same as the
technical description of Lot 12, Cad. – 259 by Mr. Felipe R. Venezuela, Chief
of Technical Services Section of the Bureau of Lands[5] and the certification of Mr. Isaias S. Cepe, Acting Chief,
Surveys Division of the Bureau[6] so that the investigation report
of Mr. Salbado is without basis and cannot
defeat the property rights of respondent; respondent denies the alleged
possession of petitioners of 10 to 15 years of the lot the truth being it is
the predecessor of respondent who had been in possession thereof and it was
only recently when petitioners who had residential houses located at the
adjoining lot and outside the perimeter of the fence of the said lot of
respondent forcibly and illegally constructed several shanties thereon; that said anomalous act of petitioners
cannot render nugatory the title of respondent to said private property; that when respondent learned petitioners
have destroyed the perimeter fence of his property and were making illegal
constructions thereon he immediately referred the matter to the City Engineer’s
Office for appropriate action so said office acted to prevent such illegal
construction[7]
by demolishing said shanties in accordance with Letter of Instruction No. 19;
that petitioners in the guise of being harassed by respondent proposed to
deprive respondent of his private property whereon they squatted; that
petitioners are facing two (2) charges for violation of P.D 77 (Anti Squatting
Law) and of malicious mischief; and that the issuance of a restraining order,
injunction or prohibition will not be in consonance with the supreme interest
of justice as in fact it is petitioners who should be enjoined to respect the
proprietary rights of respondent. Thus respondent prays for the dismissal of
the petition and for such other reliefs or remedies
that maybe in consonance with equity and justice.
In the reply to respondent’s comment petitioners reiterate that Lot
18 is not Lot 12 of Cad. 259; that while they do not dispute that respondent is
the vendee of the property covered by TCT 3454 (32057) the same refers to Lot
18 and not Lot 12; that petitioners refer to the report of Salbado
that “8 or more families” belonging to their association “were able
to enter the property wherein they have established their respective abodes; that
they filed a criminal case, against respondent at the Tanodbayan
and an administrative case with the Metro Manila Commission; that the criminal
case respondent filed against them in the City Fiscal’s
Office is a mere
leverage; that they deny destroying the
perimeter fence of the lot; and that they are not land grabbers.
In a rejoinder to petitioners’ reply and an urgent motion to
submit additional documentary evidence, etc., respondent traversed the
allegations of petitioners and submitted the letter of the Director of the
Bureau of Lands of 23 May 1985 that a cadastral map verification show Lot 18 of
TCT No. 3454 (32057) appear more or less the same as Lot 12, Cad. 259″ but
that *an actual verification is necessary in order to confirm the identity of the
land.”[8]
Petitioners filed their
memorandum attaching thereto among others a blue print map of Pasay Cadastre No. 259 approved by then Director Jose P. Dans to show that Lot 12 is
distinct from Lot 18.[9] On the other hand, respondent through his
Manifestation and Compliance submitted the result of the verification survey of
Acting Chief Isaias S. Cepe
of August 26, 1985 showing that Lot 12 is identical to Lot 18;[10] the affidavit of Mr. Ferdinand (Naki) Hiranand, ranking officer
of the vendor Bombay Association that at the time of the sale of the property
to respondent there was no occupant thereon nor any shanty built;[11] and the copy of the resolution of the Tanodbayan clearing respondent.
A writ of prohibition is
directed against any tribunal, corporation, board, or person, whether, exercising
functions judicial or ministerial, whose proceedings
are without or in excess of its or
his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, and there is no appeal or any other plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[12] It is intended to prevent the oppressive
exercise of legal authority.[13]
An injunction is a writ framed according to
the circumstances of the case commanding an act which the Court regards
as essential to justice, or restraining an act it deems contrary to equity and
good conscience.[14] It
is a judicial process whereby a person is required to do or refrain from doing
a particular thing.[15] In
order that a preliminary injunction may be granted at any time after the
commencement of the action and before judgment, it must be established:
“SEC. 3. – x x x
(a) That the plaintiff is
entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists
in restraining the commission or continuance of the acts complained of, or in
the performance of an act or acts, either for a limited period or perpetually;
(b) That the commission or
continuance of some act complained of during the litigation or the nonperformance
thereof would probably work injustice to the plaintiff; or
(c) That the defendant is
doing, threatens or is about to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done,
some act probably in violation of the plaintiff’s rights respecting the subject
of the action, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual.”[16]
There are two requisites
for the issuance of an injunction namely, (1) that the right to be protected
exists; and (2) that the acts against which the injunction is to be directed
are violative of said right.[17]
The existence of a right
violated is a pre-requisite to the granting of an injunction. An injunction will not issue to protect a
right not in esse and which may never arise.[18] Failure to establish either the existence of
a clear and positive right which should be judicially protected through
the writ of injunction, or that the defendant has committed or attempts to
commit any act which has endangered or tends to endanger the existence of said
right, is a sufficient ground for denying the injunction.[19]
In this case the
petitioners claim that they are entitled to the possession of the property in question and have filed an application for the allocation of the same
to them by the Bureau of Lands being a patrimonial property. On the other hand, respondent contends that
he is the true owner of said lot being private property which he purchased from
the Bombay Merchant Association, Inc. as the titled owner thereof and that
petitioners entered the property only after his acquisition of the same. Respondent further presented documents to
show that Lot 12 as claimed by petitioners is identical to
Lot 18 which is the titled property of
respondent. Documents to show the
contrary are also presented by the petitioners.
This Court is not a trier of
facts. The parties must litigate the
issue of identity of the property and
ownership before the proper
courts if they have not as yet done
so. Petitioners by this time must have pursued to its termination their application with
the Bureau of Lands to determine the merit of their claim thereto. As it is, petitioners have not established a
clear and positive right to the property in question.
Thus the restraining
order that this Court issued cannot be maintained any longer as there is no
lawful justification therefor. The parties are advised to take the proper
administrative or legal steps to protect their interests and establish their conflicting claims.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED and the
restraining order the Court
issued is dissolved. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Yap, (Chairman), Narvasa,
Melencio-Herrera, Cruz, Feliciano, and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.
[1]
Annexes B and C, petition.
[2]
Annex E, petition.
[3]
Annex B, supra.
[4]
Annexes 1, 1-a and 2, Comment.
[5]
Annex 3, Comment.
[6]
Annex 4, Comment.
[7]
Annexes 5 and 6, Comment.
[8]
Annex A, Urgent Motion to allow respondent to submit additional documentary
evidence, etc., 11. 76-79, rollo.
[9]
Annexes B to B-2 Memorandum of
petitioners.
[10]
Annex B Manifestation and compliance of
respondent.
[11]
Annexes D, E supra.
[12]
Section 2, Rule 65, Rules of Court.
[13]
Dimayuga vs. Fernandez, 43 Phil. 304; Tong,
etc. vs. Santamaria, 54 Phil. 571; Maria Lopez
vs. Poras, L-25795, Oct.
29, 1955.
[14]
Section 1, Rule 58, Rules of Court; 43 C.J.S. 405; Gainsburg
vs. Dodge, 101 S.W. 2d 178, 193 Art. 473.
[15]
Supra.
[16]
Section 3, Rule 58, Rules of Court.
[17]
Supra.
[18]
Angela Estate Inc. vs. CFI of Negros
Occidental, G.R. No. L-27084, July 31, 1968.
[19]
North Negros Sugar Co., vs. Hidalgo,
63 Phil. 664; Araneta et al., vs. Gatmaitan et. al and Soriano et.
al., G.R. Nos. L-9191 & L-8895, April
30, 1957.