Raspado v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Nely T. Raspado filed a complaint for recovery of possession of real property (accion publiciana) with preliminary mandatory injunction and damages against herein respondents. The complaint alleged that petitioner is the owner of a parcel of land in Intramuros, Manila, acquired by virtue of an Absolute Deed of Sale executed on August 7, 1990. It further alleged that respondents surreptitiously entered the property in 1986 and built shanties thereon, illegally depriving petitioner and her predecessor-in-interest of possession since 1986. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 39, Manila, granted petitioner's motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. The corresponding writ was issued. Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. Subsequently, the Court of Appeals (CA) set aside the RTC's order granting the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, ruling that petitioner's motion for reconsideration was deemed abandoned due to the filing of the instant petition without waiting for the CA to resolve the motion. The Petition: Petitioner claims that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion when it set aside the trial court's order granting the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. The principal issue is whether the appellate court acted whimsically, capriciously, and in wanton disregard of law, thereby committing grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction in setting aside the writ.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. Whether a preliminary mandatory injunction is a proper remedy to dispossess occupants who have been in possession for a long period, pending resolution of the main case for recovery of possession. Whether the petitioner made out a clear case, free from doubt and dispute, to warrant the issuance of a preliminary mandatory injunction, considering the alleged willful and unlawful invasion of rights.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, denying the petition for lack of merit. The Court held that the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of a preliminary mandatory injunction and the alleged grave abuse of discretion: The Court reiterated the guidelines for issuing a preliminary mandatory injunction, emphasizing that it is not a proper remedy to take property out of the possession of one party and deliver it to another, except in cases of extreme urgency where the right to possession is very clear and there was a wilful and unlawful invasion of rights. The appellate court correctly found that the injunction issued by the trial court went beyond maintaining the status quo, as it established a new relationship rather than re-establishing a pre-existing one. The petitioners were already in possession when the property was sold, and the injunction would dispossess them without affording them a full hearing. On whether a preliminary mandatory injunction is a proper remedy to dispossess occupants: The Court found that the petitioner had not made out a clear case, free from doubt and dispute, to warrant the issuance of the injunction. While she possessed a Transfer Certificate of Title, the issue was one of possession de jure, not ownership. The petitioners vigorously maintained their right to possession as lawful occupants for over 25 years, asserting a right of first refusal. Furthermore, they raised defenses regarding the validity of the deed of sale and the petitioner's financial capacity, suggesting she might be a dummy for her common-law husband, an alien disqualified to own land. If these defenses were proven, the complaint would be dismissed, indicating that the petitioner had not shown a clear right to the injunction. On whether petitioner made out a clear case, considering the alleged willful and unlawful invasion of rights: The Court noted that petitioners entered the property when it was owned by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila. The petitioner failed to adduce evidence showing a willful and unlawful invasion of her rights, admitting she had no knowledge of how the petitioners entered the property. Her witness, employed by her, was also not in a competent position to testify about events in 1986, especially given his residence far from the premises.
Main Doctrine
A preliminary mandatory injunction is not a proper remedy to take property, possession of which is being disputed, out of the possession and control of one party and to deliver the same to the other party. It may issue pendente lite only in cases of extreme urgency, where the right to the possession, during the pendency of the main case, of the property involved is very clear; where considerations of relative inconvenience bear strongly in favor of the complainant seeking the possession pendente lite; where there was wilful and unlawful invasion of plaintiff's rights, over his protest and remonstrance, the injury being a continuing one; where the effect of the preliminary mandatory injunction is to re-establish and maintain a pre-existing and continuing relationship between the parties, rather than to establish a new relationship during the pendency of the principal case.