Navarro v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Civil Case No. T-511 was filed by Bibiano M. Viña (private respondent) seeking to annul a final judgment of the Court of First Instance (CFI) in Civil Case No. T-329. In Civil Case No. T-329, Brigida Navarro (petitioner) and her predecessors-in-interest were declared the registered owners and placed in possession of the property in litigation. Procedural History: The CFI dismissed Civil Case No. T-511 on grounds alleged in the motion to dismiss and for failure to prosecute. Six months later, a Motion for Reconsideration was filed. The CFI, without proof of service and ex parte, granted the motion, reinstating the case. Subsequently, the CFI issued a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, also ex parte, ordering the restoration of possession of the land in question to the plaintiff (private respondent). This writ was immediately enforced, ejecting petitioner's tenants and delivering possession of the property to private respondent. An omnibus motion filed by petitioner questioning the irregularity of the reconsideration and the issuance of the injunction was denied. The Petition: The Court of Appeals annulled and set aside the CFI's orders, holding that the judge acted with grave abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals found that the reconsideration was hastily acted upon without proof of service and that the injunction was ex parte, mandatory in character, and hurriedly issued, depriving registered owners in possession of their property without due process. Brigida Navarro filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, alleging lack of proper summons, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, and that the Court of Appeals deprived the probate court of property in custodia legis.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in annulling and setting aside the orders of the trial court. Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in reconsidering the dismissal order and issuing the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction.
Ruling
The petition is devoid of merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, dismissing the petition and upholding the annulment of the questioned orders.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the Court of Appeals' decision: The provided text does not contain any ratio decidendi related to whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error. Therefore, no corresponding ratio can be provided for this issue. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in reconsidering the dismissal order and issuing the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction: The Supreme Court held that the trial judge gravely abused his discretion when he issued the order on May 11, 1974, reconsidering the dismissal of the case. This was done despite setting a hearing for a supplement to the motion and a companion motion for injunction on May 14, 1974, to allow adverse parties to interpose objections. The notice for this hearing was ordered to be sent by registered mail, special delivery, complemented by telegraphic notice. However, the telegram was received by private respondents' counsel only on May 14, 1974, the very day of the hearing, prompting them to request a resetting. It was evident that when the judge called the case for hearing, there was no proof of service of the order for such hearing on private respondents. The judge further gravely abused his discretion by insisting on hearing the incident and thereafter granting ex parte the motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. This writ placed the property in dispute in the possession of the petitioner and deprived the private respondents of their possession, which they had obtained by virtue of a final judgment in Civil Case No. T-329. The Court reiterated the principle that no preliminary injunction shall be granted without notice to the defendant, as provided in Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court. Furthermore, it is a settled rule that a writ of injunction is not proper where its purpose is to take property out of the possession or control of one person and place the same in the hands of another where title has not been clearly established by law. The judge arbitrarily allowed the left hand of the court to take, by way of preliminary injunction, what its right hand had given by virtue of a final judgment, making a mockery of the judicial process.
Main Doctrine
A writ of injunction is not proper where its purpose is to take property out of the possession or control of one person and place the same in the hands of another where title has not been clearly established by law. The issuance of a mandatory injunction ex parte, without notice to the adverse party and to divest possession based on a final judgment, constitutes grave abuse of discretion.