Rosauro v. Cuneta
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, officers and members of "Pargal Samahang Magkakapitbahay Inc.," alleged possession of Lot 12, Pasay Cadastre for 10-15 years, constructing houses thereon. They claimed it was patrimonial property and had filed an application for its allocation with the Bureau of Lands. They further alleged that respondent Mayor Pablo Cuneta, accompanied by armed men and the demolition squad, entered the lot and partially demolished some houses without due process or legal basis, intending to forcibly dispossess them. Procedural History: Petitioners filed a petition for prohibition, injunction, with a prayer for preliminary injunction/restraining order. The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order and required respondent to comment. The Petition: Petitioners sought to permanently prohibit respondent Mayor from dispossessing them of the lot, alleging grave abuse of discretion and irreparable injury. They claimed they had no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court can resolve the conflicting claims regarding the identity of Lot 12 and Lot 18 and the ownership thereof. Whether petitioners have established a clear and positive right to the property to warrant the issuance of a writ of prohibition and injunction.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed, and the restraining order issued by the Court is dissolved. The parties are advised to take the proper administrative or legal steps to protect their interests and establish their conflicting claims.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of resolving conflicting claims regarding identity and ownership: The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. The conflicting claims regarding the identity of Lot 12 and Lot 18, and the ownership of the property, are factual issues that must be litigated before the proper courts or administrative bodies. The Court noted that both parties presented documents to support their respective claims, making it impossible for the Supreme Court to definitively resolve these factual disputes in the present proceeding. The Court emphasized that the parties must pursue their claims through the appropriate legal or administrative channels to establish their rights. On whether petitioners have established a clear and positive right: The Court held that petitioners had not established a clear and positive right to the property in question. Their claim was based on alleged possession and an application for allocation with the Bureau of Lands, while the respondent presented a Transfer Certificate of Title and certifications from the Bureau of Lands suggesting the identity of the lots. Without a clear and established right, the extraordinary remedies of prohibition and injunction, which are meant to protect existing rights, cannot be granted. The Court reiterated the principle that an injunction will not issue to protect a right not in esse or one that may never arise.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court will not resolve factual issues such as the identity of property and ownership, which are matters for the trial courts or appropriate administrative bodies to determine. A writ of prohibition or injunction will not issue where the petitioner has not established a clear and positive right to the property in question.