ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 141957. March 22. 2000]

FLAVIANA PAGUIA vs. CA, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 22 2000.

G.R. No. 141957 (Flaviana Paguia vs. Court of Appeals, Hon. Rodolfo R. Bonifacio, in his capacity as the Presiding Judge of RTC-NCJR, Branch 151, Hon. Maria Cristina J. Cornejo, in her capacity as the Presiding Judge of MTC-NCJR, Branch 68, and Benjamin T. Gatchalian.)

Petitioner seeks to set aside the Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated October 8, 1999 denying her petition for certiorari, and the subsequent Resolution of the same court dated February 21, 2000 denying her motion for reconsideration.

On October 28, 1996, the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Pasig City rendered a Decision in Civil Case No. 5407, entitled "Benjamin T. Gatchalian vs. Eugene Angala and all persons claiming rights under him," ordering the "defendant and al persons claiming rights under him to vacate the subject parcel of land located at C. Cruz St., Malasaga, Pinagbuhatan, Pasig City."

Subsequently, the MTC issued summonses setting the hearing of the motion for execution of the above decision. Petitioner was informed of said summons by her son-in-law, Eugene Angala, the defendant in Civil Case No. 5407.

To avert the impending execution of the decision, petitioner filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City a petition for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order. Petitioner alleged that she is the owner and possessor of the subject premises and that she was not made a party to the proceedings in Civil Case No. 5407.

In an Order dated March 23, 1999, the RTC denied petitioner's motion for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. The RTC held:

To be entitled to the injunctive [writ], petitioner must show that there exist a right to be protected which is directly threatened by an act sought to be enjoined. Furthermore, as ruled by the Supreme Court in the case of Syndicated Media Access Corp. vs. CA, 219 SCRA 797, "there must be a showing that the invasion of the right is material and substantial["] and that ["]there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.["] The petitioner's right must be clear and unmistakable.

During the ex-parte hearing on March 2, 1999, petitioner testified that nobody owns the subject property [of] which she [has] allegedly [been in] possess[ion] since 1963. However, a perusal of the records, particularly the annexes attached to the Petition[,] belie Petitioner's claims. On January 2, 1979, a Kasunduan (Annex B) was executed among Avelino, Francisca, Estanislao and Marciano, all surnamed Antonio, and petitioner and [her] late husband. A careful reading thereof reveals that petitioner acknowledge the Antonios as the owner[s] of [the] subject property on which they have built a house. Said Kasunduan allowed petitioner to stay on aid property for five years or until 1984 without paying any rentals. Petitioner failed to comply with the "kasunduan" hence, a case for Enforcement of Contract and Recovery of Property with Damages was filed by the Antonios including private respondent as heir of Benigna Antonio Gatchalian, against petitioner docketed as Civil Case No. 64068 (Annex B). Clearly, petitioner's right over [the] subject property is doubtful. When the complainant's right or title is doubtful or disputed, injunction is not proper (Arcega vs. CA, G.R. No. 122206, July 7, 1997). [Rollo, pp. 32-33.]

The RTC likewise denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration in an Order dated August 25, 1999.

Aggrieved, petitioner filed before the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The appellate court, however, denied the petition in the first assailed Resolution. The court expressed its full accord with the conclusions of the RTC, quoting in toto the RTC Order dated March 23, 1999. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied in the second assailed Resolution. Hence, this petition.

Like the Court of Appeals, this Court finds the foregoing disquisition of the RTC to be in accordance with law. Moreover, for certiorari to issue, the petitioner must establish that the RTC, in denying the motion for preliminary injunction, not only committed abuse of discretion but grave abuse. Petitioner failed to establish any such abuse to warrant the extraordinary remedy of certiorari. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals did not commit any reversible error in denying her petition.

In any event, the denial of the motion for preliminary injunction by the RTC does not preclude the grant of the petition for certiorari and prohibition by the same court if it subsequently deems the case meritorious.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to DENY the petition.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE