G.R. No. L-44353 February 28, 1979
MARTHA FERANIL and PRIMITIVO VILLEGAS, petitioners, vs. HON. GUMERSINDO ARCILLA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Branch III, City Court of Davao City and SPOUSES ALFONSO CARDENAS and LOLITA CARDENAS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Martha Feranil and Primitivo Villegas filed an ejectment case (forcible entry with preliminary mandatory injunction) against respondents Alfonso and Lolita Cardenas in the City Court of Davao. The complaint alleged Feranil was the prior legal possessor of a lot, and that on September 20, 1975, she leased a portion to Villegas for a fruit stand. On September 23, 1975, respondents allegedly forcibly entered and dispossessed them. The City Court initially granted a preliminary mandatory injunction. In their answer, respondents moved to dismiss, arguing the complaint stated no cause of action for Villegas as it lacked an allegation of his prior physical possession, and moved to dissolve the injunction.
The City Court, in a preliminary hearing on the affirmative defenses, ordered Villegas dropped as a co-plaintiff, denied the motion to dismiss Feranil’s action, modified the injunction to apply only to Feranil, and ordered either Feranil or Villegas to remove improvements made after the injunction’s issuance. Later, it dissolved the injunction entirely for alleged lack of a requisite bond. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of First Instance, which dismissed it, sustaining the City Court’s orders.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the City Court erred in dropping Villegas as a party-plaintiff; (2) whether it erred in ordering the removal of improvements made after the injunction; and (3) whether it erred in dissolving the preliminary mandatory injunction for lack of a bond.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the respondent court’s order. On the first issue, the Court held that both lower courts erred in focusing solely on the allegation of Feranil’s prior possession for a forcible entry claim. The complaint, read as a whole, also sufficiently alleged a cause of action for unlawful detainer in favor of Villegas. It stated that a lease contract was executed between Feranil and Villegas on September 20, 1975, and that since September 23, 1975, defendants had been in illegal possession, unjustly prejudicing the plaintiffs’ expected earnings. These allegations established Villegas as a lessee entitled to possession (possessio civilis) derived from Feranil, giving him a valid cause of action. Therefore, the order dropping him from the complaint was incorrect.
On the second issue, the order for the removal of improvements was declared improper. The legal effect of a preliminary mandatory injunction is to restore the status quo ante, placing the plaintiff in the same situation as before the alleged illegal act. Once possession was restored by the injunction, Feranil (and Villegas, as her lessee) were entitled to the full enjoyment of the property, including making improvements, as if the forcible entry had never occurred. The order interfered with this restored right.
On the third issue, the dissolution of the injunction for lack of a bond was erroneous. The record showed a bond was duly filed by Villegas as principal. Since Villegas was properly a party with a cause of action, his bond was valid and effective to support the injunction. Consequently, the dissolved preliminary mandatory injunction was ordered restored.