|
|
|
|
|
LUCAS REYES,
SANTOS
NORUNA
G.
R.
No. 6434
February
6, 1912
-versus-
MSGR. JEREMIAH J. HARTY, ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA, Defendant-Appellee. MORELAND,
J:
The plaintiffs allege,
as a cause of action, that Lino Cajili, a Parish Priest of the Roman
Catholic
Church at Malabon, and, as administrator of the Capellania of Malabon,
on or about the 20th day of February, 1908, leased to the plaintiffs
certain
lands specifically described in the Complaint for the period of six
years
from said date; that immediately on the execution of said lease, the
plaintiffs
entered into possession of said lands and thereupon sublet most of them
to other persons, retaining possession of those portions not leased;
that
the Archbishop of Manila, defendant in this action, by his agents and
employees,
entered upon said lands prior to the commencement of this action,
proceeded
to survey same and lease them to other persons, in contravention of the
rights of plaintiffs under the lease referred to; that the plaintiffs,
verbally and in writing, prior to the commencement of this action,
notified
the defendant, his agents and employees, of their rights in the
premises,
and forbade them to proceed further in what they were executing or to
do
any other acts in connection with said property; that by reason of said
acts of defendant the plaintiffs have suffered damage in the sum of
P3,000.
Upon these allegations the plaintiffs ask, in the original Complaint, the following relief:
(b) That the plaintiffs have judgment against the defendants for the sum of P3,000 as damages for the acts complained of. (c) That the court issue a preliminary injunction against the defendant ordering him, his agents and employees, to abstain from performing any act or doing anything in violation of the rights of the plaintiffs in the lands referred to during the pendency of this action. The Answer denied all of
the material allegations of the Complaint. It also alleged the lack of
authority on the part of Lino Cajili to make the lease described in the
Complaint, and that the lease in question was entered into as a result
of a conspiracy on the part of the plaintiffs and said Lino Cajili to
prejudice
the defendant and his interests. The cause went to trial and evidence
was
introduced for the purpose of sustaining the allegations of the
Complaint
and of laying a basis for the relief demanded thereunder. It appearing,
however, on the trial that the lands aforesaid had, at the time of the
trial, been actually seized and taken possession of by the defendant
and
the plaintiffs ousted from their occupation of the same, the
plaintiffs,
after the trial had been terminated, but prior to the submission of the
case upon written argument, asked leave to file an amended complaint,
which,
in addition to the facts alleged in the original Complaint, contained
the
following allegations:
The proposed Amended Complaint
further alleges the right of the plaintiffs to recover possession of
said
lands as against the defendant, and ends with the following prayer:
"(b) That the court restore and deliver to the plaintiffs the possession of said lands; "(c) That the court reserve to the plaintiffs the right to recover the damages caused and which are being caused by the defendant during the period of his possession." The
Court reserved its
Decision as to the motion to file the said Amended Complaint. The first
notice that the plain tiffs had of the refusal of the Court to permit
the
filing of the Amended Complaint was that conveyed to them by the
decision
of the court finally disposing of the case. The plaintiffs took no
special
exception to the refusal of the Court to permit the complaint to be
amended,
and on this appeal assigned no error in that regard. Their right to
that
relief was not in question in the Court below and is not in question on
appeal, the whole brief of the plaintiffs being confined, both in
extent
and in argument, to the facts alleged in the Original Complaint and the
proofs made thereunder. Not having taken any exception, and not having
presented the question on this appeal, either by assignment of error or
by argument, this court must assume that the plaintiffs abandoned their
request to file an Amended Complaint.
This being so, the only question remaining for Our consideration is that of the right of the plaintiffs to a preliminary injunction restraining the defendant, his agents and employees, from performing any act looking to the dispossession of the plaintiffs from the lands described in the complaint. It is a universal principle of law that an injunction will not issue to restrain the performance of an act already done. It is the undisputed proof in this case, presented by the plaintiffs themselves, that, at the time this cause was tried, the plaintiffs had been completely dispossessed, the defendant being in full and complete possession of the lands in question and administering them in behalf of the church. This being so, the action for injunction fails.The judgment is affirmed upon this ground alone, it not being desired by this Court to place the decision on a ground which will prevent the plaintiffs from exercising any rights of action which they may have in relation to said lands against the defendant, if any. No special finding as to costs. Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, Carson and Trent, JJ., concur. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|