Bautista v. Barcelona
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents filed a complaint against petitioners seeking to be declared entitled to the use and possession of a passage-way, 3 meters wide and 3.4 meters long, on a portion of Lot No. 133 of the Batangas Cadastral Survey. Respondents claimed they had been using this passage-way, which connects their lots to D. Silang Street, for over 50 years. They alleged that petitioners, by strategy and stealth, closed this passage-way by building a stone wall and fence on December 27, 1956, thereby depriving respondents of its use. Procedural History: Respondents prayed for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to maintain the status quo and allow them to continue using the passage-way pending the determination of the case. The Court of First Instance of Batangas granted the writ ex parte upon the verified complaint and a P600 bond, finding that the closing would cause respondents great inconvenience and irreparable injury. Petitioners moved to set aside the writ, which was denied. Petitioners then filed the present petition for certiorari. The Petition: Petitioners seek to set aside the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction and the order denying their motion to set aside, alleging abuse of discretion by the respondent judge.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed an abuse of discretion in issuing a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction ex parte. Whether the circumstances warranted the issuance of a mandatory injunction prior to final hearing.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The orders subject of the present petition are hereby set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issuance of a preliminary mandatory injunction ex parte: The Court held that the respondent judge committed an abuse of discretion in granting the writ without giving petitioners the right to be heard. While the Rules of Court do not expressly provide for mandatory injunctions, they have been upheld in previous cases. However, a mandatory injunction tends to do more than maintain the status quo and should generally not issue prior to final hearing, except in cases of extreme urgency. The Court found that the circumstances did not meet this threshold for ex parte issuance. On the circumstances warranting a mandatory injunction: The Court reiterated the rule laid down in Manila Electric Railroad & Light Co. vs. Del Rosario and Jose regarding the issuance of a mandatory injunction. Such a writ may be issued prior to final hearing in cases of extreme urgency, where the right is very clear, considerations of relative inconvenience strongly favor the complainant, there is a willful and unlawful invasion of the plaintiff's right against protest, the injury is continuing, and the effect is to re-establish a pre-existing relation arbitrarily interrupted. The Court found that the claim of respondents regarding the 50-year use of the passage-way was disputed, petitioners claimed ownership under a Torrens title, and respondents' lots abutted a street expressly provided for their use. These factors indicated that the easement of right of way was not indubitable, thus not entitling respondents to the immediate demolition of the wall and fence without a hearing.
Main Doctrine
A mandatory injunction, which commands the performance of a positive act, should not issue prior to final hearing except in cases of extreme urgency, where the right is very clear, considerations of relative inconvenience bear strongly in complainant's favor, there is a willful and unlawful invasion of plaintiff's right against his protest and remonstrance, and the injury is continuing, and the effect of the injunction is to re-establish a pre-existing relation arbitrarily interrupted.