Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1988 > August 1988 Decisions > G.R. No. L-40069 August 11, 1988 - HEIRS OF PEDRO GACUTAN v. MELQUIADES S. SUCALDITO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-40069. August 11, 1988.]

HEIRS OF PEDRO GACUTAN namely PEDRITO, MANUEL, JESUS, EUSEBIO, PHOEBE, NORMA, GILDA, FELY, ROMEO, and DELLA, all surnamed GACUTAN, represented by PEDRITO GACUTAN and JESUS GACUTAN, Petitioners, v. HON. MELQUIADES S. SUCALDITO, in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Sur. ALEJANDRO DALIPOSON, MERCEDES PERALTA and TRANQUILINO DEL ROSARIO, Respondents.

Organo and Organo Law Offices, for Petitioners.

Achilles E. Peralta for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; JUDGMENTS AND EXECUTION; WRIT OF PRELIMINARY PROHIBITORY INJUNCTION; ISSUANCE THEREOF AFTER HEARING, PROPER. — The respondent trial court did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction. The same was issued after a hearing was conducted wherein both parties were afforded the opportunity to ventilate their respective sides. In that hearing, the petitioners asserted their control and possession of the contested property under a claim of title originating from the torrens title of their predecessor-in-interest. The private respondents, on the other hand, by their testimonies and by that of the tenants tilling the subject property, were able to show satisfactorily that prior to the commencement of the action the private respondents were in actual possession and control of the said property in the concept of owners.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; GROUNDS FOR ISSUANCE THEREOF IN CASE AT BAR UPHELD; TRIAL JUDGE ACTED IN CONSONANCE WITH LAW. — The private respondents complaint for reconveyance at the least raises doubt on the validity of the petitioners title over the contested property. To permit, therefore, the petitioners to take possession and control of the said property, even during the pendency of the case, would most certainly be detrimental to the private respondents rights. The respondent judge thus acted in consonance with the law when he issued the assailed writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction. It is precisely the province of a preliminary injunction, mandatory or prohibitory, to preserve the status quo between litigants to prevent possible violation of a party’s rights.


D E C I S I O N


SARMIENTO, J.:


The legality of the issuance of the writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction granted by the respondent court is the sole issue in this petition for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. The questioned orders, dated October 4, 1974 and January 17, 1975, of the respondent judge, enjoined and/or prohibited the petitioners, who are the defendants in Civil Case No. 1463 (for recovery of ownership, annulment of sale, and damages, with prayer for the issuance of a preliminary prohibitory injunction) in the then Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Sur, entitled, "Alejandro Daliposon, Et. Al. v. Heirs of Pedro Gacutan, Et Al.," from entering or occupying portions of the land in question occupied and possessed by the plaintiffs Alejandro Daliposon and Tranquilino del Rosario, the herein private respondents, and likewise enjoining and/or prohibiting the said defendants, or any of their agents or representatives, from getting the owner’s share or rentals of the said portions from the tenants thereof. 1

On February 7, 1975, we issued a temporary restraining order, by which we restrained the private respondents from taking over the possession of the property subject of the herein petition, and from enforcing the assailed orders of the public Respondent. We also required the respondents to file their answer to the petition after which we gave due course.cralawnad

The complaint filed in the respondent court states that the private respondents, the spouses Alejandro Daliposon and Mercedes Peralta, were the original owners of the entire property comprising of 171,100 square meters situated at Tawagan, Pagadian, Zamboanga (now Tawagan Norte, Labangan, Zamboanga del Sur), and originally covered by Original Certificate of Title (O.C.T.) No. P-354. The same spouses claim having sold to their co-private Respondent. Tranquilino del Rosario, a 3-hectare portion of the said property on February 26, 1940, and to Pedro Gacutan, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, an 8-hectare portion thereof sometime in 1957. They allege however that in 1974, shortly before they filed their complaint (on August 13, 1974), they discovered that by virtue of an alleged deed of sale dated October 6, 1966, which contained their (Daliposon’s) forged signatures and notarized by a notary public before whom they never appeared, their Original Certificate of Title had been cancelled and a new one, Transfer Certificate of Title (T.C.T.) No. T-2651 in favor of Pedro Gacutan was issued. Further, they allege that at the time they filed their complaint with the respondent court, the petitioners-defendants were poised to occupy and take possession of the portion of the property in their (private respondents-plaintiffs’) possession and actual control, and, likewise, were trying to get the owner’s share or rental from their tenants. Thus, the private respondents pray that the title of the portions of the property included in T.C.T. No. T-2651 in their possession and control be reconveyed to them. On the other hand, the petitioners (defendants in the court a quo) in their answer to the complaint, allege that they are the ones who are in possession of the entire property covered by T.C.T. No. T-2651 in the name of Pedro Gacutan, the petitioners’ predecessor-in-interest.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

The respondent court conducted a hearing on the private respondents’ application for the issuance of a preliminary prohibitory injunction which was opposed by the petitioners. After hearing, the trial court issued the assailed order of October 4, 1974, granting the application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction conditioned upon the filing of a P4,000.00 — bond. The petitioners moved for a reconsideration of the order but their motion was denied on January 17, 1975. Hence, this petition in which the petitioners claim that the issuance by the respondent judge of the assailed orders is a violation of their rights as owners of the disputed property and amounted to a grave abuse of discretion.

The petition lacks merit.

The respondent trial court did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction. The same was issued after a hearing was conducted wherein both parties were afforded the opportunity to ventilate their respective sides. In that hearing, the petitioners asserted their control and possession of the contested property under a claim of title originating from the torrens title of their predecessor-in-interest. The private respondents, on the other hand, by their testimonies and by that of the tenants tilling the subject property, were able to show satisfactorily that prior to the commencement of the action the private respondents were in actual possession and control of the said property in the concept of owners. Interestingly, one Rominico Acosaga, whom the petitioners claimed to be their tenant, 2 when called by the court to the witness stand declared that he was coerced into surrendering the owner’s share of the fruits of the property to the said petitioners after he was hauled to the Philippine Constabulary camp. 3 It is evident that in the hearing conducted by the respondent trial court, the private respondents were able to establish a prima facie showing that they have a right to the final relief they seek.cralawnad

The private respondents complaint for reconveyance at the least raises doubt on the validity of the petitioners title over the contested property. To permit, therefore, the petitioners to take possession and control of the said property, even during the pendency of the case, would most certainly be detrimental to the private respondents rights. The respondent judge thus acted in consonance with the law when he issued the assailed writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction. It is precisely the province of a preliminary injunction, mandatory or prohibitory, to preserve the status quo between litigants to prevent possible violation of a party’s rights. 4 Besides, in compliance with the respondent judge’s order, the private respondents posted the required bond conditioned to answer for any damage the petitioners may suffer in case the issuance of the writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction is later on found unwarranted. 5

WHEREFORE, for lack of merit and for failure to show grave abuse of discretion committed by the respondent court, the petition is DISMISSED, and the Temporary Restraining Order earlier issued is hereby LIFTED. Costs against the petitioners.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera (Chairman), Paras and Padilla, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, 33.

2. Rollo, 109.

3. Id., 114-116.

4. Banyan Cattle Co., Inc. v. Quintillan, No. L-26970, March 19, 1984, 128 SCRA 276; Feranil v. Arcilla, No. L-44353, February 28, 1979, 88 SCRA 770.

5. Mendoza v. Cruz, No. L-26829, December 27, 1979, 94 SCRA 821.




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-1988 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-24957 August 3, 1988 - PAULINO V. NERA v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. 74489 August 3, 1988 - SHIN I INDUSTRIAL (PHIL.) v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 77818 August 3, 1988 - NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FREE TRADE UNIONS v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-79576 August 3, 1988 - CELSO M. LARGA v. SANTIAGO RANADA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-23771 August 4, 1988 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LINGAYEN GULF ELECTRIC POWER CO.

  • G.R. No. L-31056 August 4, 1988 - LUCILA O. MANZANAL v. MAURO A. AUSEJO

  • G.R. No. L-50871 August 4, 1988 - CARLOS VELASCO v. AMADO G. INCIONG

  • G.R. No. L-51736 August 4, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ROLANDO ARAGON

  • G.R. No. 71464 August 4, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ROMEO ESTREBELLA

  • G.R. Nos. L-44410-11 August 5, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ANTONIO IRENEA

  • G.R. No. L-63552 August 5, 1988 - FRANCISCO TAN v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. L-41085 August 8, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. JESUS VIRAY

  • G.R. No. L-49699 August 8, 1988 - PERLA COMPANIA de SEGUROS, INC. v. CONSTANTE A. ANCHETA

  • G.R. No. L-50386 August 8, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. JOSE SAN BUENAVENTURA

  • G.R. No. L-77691 August 8, 1988 - PATERNO R. CANLAS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-77707 August 8, 1988 - PEDRO W. GUERZON v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-34526 August 9, 1988 - HIJO PLANTATION, INC. v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILS.

  • G.R. No. L-36770 August 9, 1988 - EMILIO DAMASCO v. TERESA DAMASCO

  • G.R. No. L-46654 August 9, 1988 - LUPO S. CABAJAL v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-71173 August 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. REYNALDO DESUYO

  • G.R. No. L-73464 August 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDMUNDO DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 74910 August 10, 1988 - ANDRES SORIANO III, ET AL. v. MANUEL YUZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29280 August 11, 1988 - PEOPLE’S BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. SYVEL’S INC.

  • G.R. No. L-40069 August 11, 1988 - HEIRS OF PEDRO GACUTAN v. MELQUIADES S. SUCALDITO

  • G.R. No. L-64848 August 11, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO ELEGINO

  • G.R. No. L-70462 August 11, 1988 - PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. L-75852 August 11, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAURO DEL PILAR

  • G.R. No. L-78592 August 11, 1988 - MUNICIPALITY OF MALOLOS v. LIBANGANG MALOLOS, INC.

  • A.M. No. P-86-33 August 15, 1988 - FILIPINA YAP SY v. CARMELITO D. CATAJAN

  • G.R. No. L-29445 August 15, 1988 - BRIGIDA BARDE v. SOCORRO POSIQUIT

  • G.R. No. L-32217 August 15, 1988 - MERCEDES SY v. DOMINADOR C. MlNA

  • G.R. No. L-33851 August 15, 1988 - MARCOPPER MINING CORP. v. JESUS V. ABELEDA

  • G.R. No. L-41383 August 15, 1988 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. ROMEO F. EDU

  • G.R. No. L-43726 August 15, 1988 - CHURCH OF CHRIST v. SPOUSES VALLESPIN

  • G.R. No. L-45349 August 15, 1988 - NEWTON JISON v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-45351 August 15, 1988 - LOURDES DELGADO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-48269 August 15, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RIZAL IDNAY

  • G.R. No. L-51570 August 15, 1988 - PHIL. VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE v. BRIGIDA V. SEGUNDO

  • G.R. No. L-57473 August 15, 1988 - SAN MIGUEL CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. Nos. 77737-38 August 15, 1988 - CHRISTINA MARIE DEMPSEY v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH LXXV

  • G.R. No. L-77765 August 15, 1988 - SEBASTIAN COSCULLUELA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-80648 August 15, 1988 - PHILIPPINE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION MANILA v. CARMELO C. NORIEL

  • G.R. No. L-40314 August 17, 1988 - LILLIAN UYTENGSU LIU v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-50054 August 17, 1988 - ETERNAL GARDENS MEMORIAL PARK CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-60287 August 17, 1988 - JOSE BERENGUER, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-75293 August 17, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUINITO HACBANG

  • G.R. Nos. L-32444-46 August 18, 1988 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. NWSA CONSOLIDATED UNIONS

  • G.R. Nos. L-33058-9 August 18, 1988 - EDGARINO L. ESPINA v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF SOUTHERN LEYTE

  • G.R. No. L-33493 August 18, 1988 - KAPISANAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA MANILA RAILROAD v. GREGORIO FAJARDO

  • G.R. No. L-46244 August 18, 1988 - LIRAG, MAÑALAC, SARANGAYA, AND TANCO SECURITIES CORP. v. RICARDO D. GALANO

  • G.R. Nos. L-55103-04 August 18, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR LEGASPI

  • G.R. No. L-56612 August 18, 1988 - ELISEO B. YUSAY v. MIDPANTAO L. ADIL

  • G.R. No. 71711 August 18, 1988 - PNOC-EXPLORATION CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-73836 August 18, 1988 - ANTOLIN T. NAGUIAT v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. L-75997 August 18, 1988 - HOSPICIO DE SAN JOSE DE BARILI v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-81446 August 18, 1988 - BONIFACIA SY PO v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-81785 August 18, 1988 - PHILIPPINE GEOTHERMAL, INC. v. CARMELO NORIEL

  • G.R. No. L-82735 August 18, 1988 - CRISOSTOMO MEDINA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-27829 August 19, 1988 - PHIL. VIRGINIA TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION v. WALFRIDO DE LOS ANGELES

  • G.R. No. L-28776 August 19, 1988 - SIMEON DEL ROSARIO v. SHELL COMPANY OF THE PHILS. LTD.

  • G.R. No. L-33910 August 19, 1988 - SILVA PIPE WORKERS UNION-NATU v. FILIPINO PIPE & FOUNDRY CORP.

  • G.R. No. L-46281-83 August 19, 1988 - COCONUT COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOC., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-47475 August 19, 1988 - MANOTOK REALTY, INC. v. JOSE H. TECSON

  • G.R. No. L-49407 August 19, 1988 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-52019 August 19, 1988 - ILOILO BOTTLERS, INC. v. CITY OF ILOILO

  • G.R. No. L-54323 August 19, 1988 - JOSE L. LOPEZ v. ENRIQUE L. S. VILLARUEL

  • G.R. No. L-62781 August 19, 1988 - PAN-ASIATIC TRAVEL CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-66826 August 19, 1988 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. Nos. L-71986-87 August 19, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGIE ANDIZA

  • G.R. No. L-74513 August 19, 1988 - HERMINIO TORIBIO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. Nos. L-76649-51 August 19, 1988 - 20TH CENTURY FOX FILM CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-34341 August 22, 1988 - PRISCILLA SUSAN PO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-80609 August 23, 1988 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-31379 August 29, 1988 - COMPANIA MARITIMA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-33573 August 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAMBERTO TAPENO

  • G.R. No. L-34122 August 29, 1988 - FRUCTUOSO GARCIA v. ABELARDO APORTADERA

  • G.R. No. L-45745 August 29, 1988 - IRENEO ABELLERA v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

  • G.R. No. L-47817 August 29, 1988 - JOVITA SALES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-48724 August 29, 1988 - CELESTINO PAHILANGA v. ARTEMON D. LUNA

  • G.R. No. L-52732 August 29, 1988 - F.F. CRUZ and CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-66478 August 29, 1988 - SANCHO R. JACINTO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. L-75195 August 29, 1988 - DAVAO LIGHT AND POWER CO. v. CRISTETO D. DINOPOL

  • G.R. No. L-30056 August 30, 1988 - MARCELO AGCAOILI v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-30381 August 30, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32798 August 30, 1988 - SILVINO ENVERZO BERNAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34229 August 30, 1988 - ALBERTO MENDOZA v. V. ENRIQUEZ FURNITURE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35126 August 30, 1988 - JACINTO FLORES, ET AL. v. FILIPINO HAND EMBROIDERY CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35618 August 30, 1988 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. NUMERIANO ESTENZO

  • G.R. No. L-36035 August 30, 1988 - NELITA FONSECA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49118 August 30, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LETICIA V. CAPITIN

  • G.R. No. L-55132 August 30, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO MEN ABAD

  • G.R. No. L-62699 August 30, 1988 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO P. SOLANO

  • G.R. No. L-65647 August 30, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO FLORES

  • G.R. No. L-66520 August 30, 1988 - EDUARDO C. TAÑEDO v. JUANITO A. BERNAD

  • G.R. No. 71552 August 30, 1988 - REMEDIOS ORTALIZ-LAMAYO v. FELIZARDO G. BATERBONIA

  • G.R. No. 73503 August 30, 1988 - BENJAMIN BELISARIO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73839 August 30, 1988 - MARY JOHNSTON HOSPITAL, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75886 August 30, 1988 - CONCEPCION ROQUE v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76483 August 30, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR AVERO

  • G.R. No. 76728 August 30, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 78656 August 30, 1988 - TRANS WORLD AIRLINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80814 August 30, 1988 - CORNELIO GODOY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81188 August 30, 1988 - TAGUM DOCTORS ENTERPRISES v. GREGORIO APSAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29881 August 31, 1988 - ENRICO PALOMAR v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31931 August 31, 1988 - FORTUNATO DE LEON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-32392 August 31, 1988 - AUREA AGUILAR, ET AL. v. RAMON BLANCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44143 August 31, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSEBIO NAZARIO

  • G.R. No. L-46575 August 31, 1988 - JOSE LIMJOCO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-49686 August 31, 1988 - FELlX GOCHAN & SONS REALTY CORPORATION v. VICENTE CAÑADA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 73131-32 August 31, 1988 - FAR EAST BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73602 August 31, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERT L. CALICDAN

  • G.R. No. 75775 August 31, 1988 - DOMINGO SUMBILLO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 76579-82 August 31, 1988 - BENEDICTO RODRIGUEZ, v. DIR. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 76724-6 August 31, 1988 - UNITRAN/BACHELOR EXPRESS, INC., ET AL. v. JOSE OLVIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77369 August 31, 1988 - HYOPSUNG MARITIME CO., LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80902 August 31, 1988 - BENGUET CORPORATION, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81490 August 31, 1988 - HAGONOY WATER DISTRICT, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.