Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1911 > August 1911 Decisions > G.R. No. 4735 August 7, 1911 - LORENZA PALAFOX v. REMIGIA MADAMBA

019 Phil 444:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 4735. August 7, 1911.]

LORENZA PALAFOX, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REMIGIA MADAMBA, Defendant-Appellant.

N. Segundo, for Appellant.

Nemesio Borwan, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE; PERMANENT INJUNCTION. — The writ of final or permanent injunction is one of the special remedies provided by the Code of Civil Procedure now in force. It will not issue except upon the condition, common to all special remedies, that no other ordinary, speedy and adequate remedy is available to avoid or repair the damage done, or which may be done, by an act in violation of the plaintiff’s rights. (Devesa v. Arbes, 13 Phil. Rep., 273.)


D E C I S I O N


MAPA, J.:


The complaint in the present case alleges the following facts:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. That the deceased husband of the complainant, Gregorio Garcia, possessed four parcels of land situated in the sitio of Cataratara-an, municipality of Dingras, Ilocos Norte, which are described in the complaint itself.

"2. That upon the death of Gregorio Garcia, the complainant and her minor sons Paciano, Lorenzo and Clodoaldo, had by the deceased during their married life, succeeded him in possession of the estates described, which have remained up to the present time undivided and under the administration of the said complainant.

"3. That notwithstanding the lawful possession in which the successors to Gregorio Garcia held the said property, a lady named Remigia Madamba ordered, in the harvest just passed, that of the year 1906, that the paddy cut on these lands by the tenant of said complainant, amounting to 4 uyones and 8 baars, be taken from the storehouse on the said lands, in which it was being stored; and further ordered cut the paddy that had not yet been harvested.

"4. That on account of such conduct of Remigia Madamba and because her actions tend to disturb the legal and peaceful possession of the owners, the complainant who now appeals to your honorable court begs, on behalf of herself and her said minor sons, a final injunction against the aforesaid Remigia Madamba."cralaw virtua1aw library

And closes with the following petition:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It is therefore prayed that the court, after admission of this complaint with its attached informal copy, subject the same to the proper procedure and, after the legal action required in the case, pronounce judgment by ordering the issuance of a final injunction perpetually restraining the commission or continuation of the act that gave rise to the complaint, with the damages provided in section 170 of the Code of Civil Procedure."cralaw virtua1aw library

After due trial of the case, judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the issuance of the injunction requested in the complaint; from which judgment the defendant appealed to this court.

The complaint has for its only and exclusive object, as has just been seen, to secure the issuance of a final injunction against the defendant. Absolutely nothing more than that was asked therein, and in fact nothing else was granted or allowed in the judgment appealed from. The question is therefore reduced to determining the propriety of said injunction in this case.

The permanent or final injunction is one of the special remedies provided by the Code of Civil Procedure now in force. Necessarily it does not issue except upon the condition, common to all special remedies, that no other ordinary, speedy and adequate remedy exists for avoiding or repairing the damage done, or which may be done, by an act in violation of the plaintiff’s rights. (Devesa v. Arbes, 13 Phil. Rep., 273.)

The facts alleged in the complaint involve questions of property or of possession that should be formulated and decided by prosecution of the actions that arise from one or the other right. Under the first point of view recovery would be proper, and under the second restitution of the possession of which the plaintiff is alleged to be unjustly deprived or despoiled. In either case, there exists the ordinary remedy of action for property of possession, which may be either plenary or summary, according to the method by which she may have been deprived of her alleged possession. As such ordinary remedy exists, entirely adequate to correct the violations committed against the right of property of possession, such as those set forth in the complaint, it appears that the facts alleged therein, which were the basis of the action, do not constitute proper material for the final injunction asked therein, because, as has been said before, this remedy is applied only in so far as there does not exist any ordinary and efficacious remedy for protecting the plaintiff or restoring to her the possession- and exercise of her right.

The reason for this principle has been clearly stated in the decision in the case of Devesa v. Arbes (13 Phil. Rep., 273, 279), above cited:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"To hold otherwise — was there stated — would be to render practically of no effect the various provisions of the code touching many if not most of the ordinary actions, and the enforcement of judgment in such actions; for it may well be supposed that if a complainant could secure relief by injunction in every case where ’the defendant is doing or threatens or is about to do, or is procuring or is suffering to be done, some act probably in violation of the plaintiff’s rights’ and could enforce the judgment granting the injunction by the summary contempt proceedings authorized in section 172 of the code to punish violations of injunctions, he would seldom elect to enforce his rights in such cases by the ordinary remedies, involving as they do the difficult and ofttimes fruitless labor of enforcing judgments obtained therein by execution."cralaw virtua1aw library

With reversal of the judgment appealed from the present case is dismissed, without finding as to costs in either instance.

Torres, Johnson, Carson and Moreland, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






August-1911 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 5180 August 4, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MAGDALENO SABERON

    019 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 5453 August 4, 1911 - DOMINGO CUMAGUN v. JULIANA ALLINGAY

    019 Phil 415

  • G.R. No. 5688 August 4, 1911 - HENRY BLUM v. MARLANO BARRETTO

    019 Phil 421

  • G.R. No. 6130 August 4, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. LEONCIO MANYEL

    019 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 6207 August 4, 1911 - SIMON MALAHACAN v. JOSEFA IGNACIO

    019 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. 6402 August 4, 1911 - RAFAEL ORTIZ LUIS v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT, ET AL.

    019 Phil 437

  • G.R. No. 6524 August 4, 1911 - VICENTA ANDRADA v. FELIX SEVlLLA, ET AL.

    019 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 4735 August 7, 1911 - LORENZA PALAFOX v. REMIGIA MADAMBA

    019 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. 5960 August 7, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO TACON, ET AL.

    019 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. 6003 August 7, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. CIRIACO IBAÑEZ, ET AL.

    019 Phil 463

  • RAMON MONTES REGUEIFEROS v. MANUEL MARIA RINCON, ET AL. : August 8, 1911 - 019 Phil 477

  • G.R. No. 6133 August 9, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MELECIO ESTAVILLO, ET AL.

    019 Phil 478

  • G.R. No. 6454 August 9, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. BRIGIDO JAVIER, ET AL.

    019 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. 6475 August 9, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. LAZARO TABUYO

    019 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. 5672 August 12, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. AMBROSIO ELISES

    019 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 6098 August 12, 1911 - INSULAR GOVERNMENT v. ALDECOA AND COMPANY

    019 Phil 505

  • G.R. No. 6201 August 12, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. SEVERO DE UNGRIA

    019 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. 6463 August 12, 1911 - DAMASA ALCALA v. MODESTA PABALAN

    019 Phil 520

  • G.R. No. 5508 August 14, 1911 - CONGREGACION DE: LA MISION DE SAN VICENTE DE PAUL v. FRANCISCO REYES, ET AL.

    019 Phil 524

  • G.R. No. 5781 August 14, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE ORO

    019 Phil 548

  • G.R. No. 6412 August 14, 1911 - DIONISIO T. CRUZ v. SILVINO LOPEZ, ET AL.

    019 Phil 555

  • G.R. No. 6421 August 14, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. CAYETANO IBAÑEZ

    019 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 5191 August 17, 1911 - CHARLES G. EADES v. ATLANTIC, GULF AND PACIFIC COMPANY

    019 Phil 561

  • G.R. No. 5734 August 17, 1911 - MARCELO MANTILE, ET AL. v. ALEJANDRO CAJUCOM, ET AL.

    019 Phil 563

  • G.R. No. 5789 August 17, 1911 - AGAPITO VILLASEÑOR v. ERLANGER & GALINGER, ET AL.

    019 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. 5759 August 22, 1911 - WALTER E. OLSEN & CO., ET AL. v. MATSON, LORD & BELSER CO.

    019 Phil 577

  • G.R. No. 5829 August 23, 1911 - PEDRO VILLA ABRILLE, ET AL v. JOSE BANUELOS, ET AL.

    020 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 5933 August 25, 1911 - CRISANTO LICHAUCO, ET AL. v. JOSE BERENGUER

    020 Phil 12