Sahim v. Montejo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Domingo Alvarez filed an action for recovery of possession of a parcel of land, approximately 4.3475 hectares, which is a portion of lot No. 410 of the Jamitan cadastre, Basilan City, covered by his Free Patent application No. 64825. The land was the subject of conflicting homestead applications between Alvarez and Iman Sahim. Procedural History: The complaint was filed in November 1950. Prior to the order of preliminary injunction, several petitions for preliminary injunction filed by Alvarez had been denied. Alvarez had rested his case by February 17, 1959. On February 27, 1959, the respondent Judge issued an order granting a preliminary injunction, placing Alvarez in possession of the property upon posting a P4,000.00 bond. The Petition: Iman Sahim filed a petition for certiorari, assailing the order of preliminary injunction and the subsequent denial of his motion for reconsideration. Petitioner argued that an injunction should not be granted to take property out of one party's possession and place it in another's whose title is not clearly established, citing the general rule against preliminary mandatory injunctions.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing a preliminary mandatory injunction placing the plaintiff in possession of the disputed property. Whether the general rule that injunctions will not disturb possession before title is clearly established is absolute.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is denied. The order of preliminary injunction is maintained, and the order dissolving it is dissolved. Costs against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The respondent Judge did not commit a grave abuse of discretion in issuing the preliminary mandatory injunction. The land in litigation was part of the public domain and was the subject of conflicting homestead applications. The Director of Lands dismissed petitioner's application and gave due course to respondent's. This decision was affirmed by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, and subsequently by the Office of the President. Copies of these decisions were submitted as evidence. Considering that the acts of executive officials in the disposition of public lands, when done in the exercise of jurisdiction and with due process, are generally not subject to judicial review, and that respondent Alvarez had not been able to take possession despite favorable administrative decisions, the issuance of the injunction was justified. On Issue 2: The general rule that injunctions will not be granted to take property out of possession and place it in another whose title is not clearly established is not absolute. While this doctrine is based on the presumption of good faith and just title of the possessor, and is expressly provided for in ejectment cases (Arts. 539 and 1674 of the Civil Code), it does not absolutely exclude other cases where compelling reasons may justify a court, in the proper exercise of discretion, to grant a mandatory injunction to place the plaintiff in possession pendente lite. The consistent affirmation of respondent Alvarez's right to the land by various executive officials, as evidenced by their decisions, constituted compelling reasons for the respondent Judge to exercise his discretion in granting the preliminary mandatory injunction.
Main Doctrine
While the general rule prohibits preliminary injunctions that transfer possession from one party to another before title is clearly established, courts may, in the exercise of sound discretion and for compelling reasons, grant a preliminary mandatory injunction to place a plaintiff in possession of real property pendente lite. This is particularly true when administrative decisions, made in the exercise of jurisdiction under the Public Land Act and with due process, have consistently awarded the property to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff has been unable to take possession despite such favorable rulings.