G.R. No. 126371 ; April 17, 2002
Jaime Bustamante and Salvacion Ababan Bustamante, petitioners, vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, Hon. Renato A. Fuentes, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 17, Victoria P. Vda. De Ababan, Teresita P. Ababan, Evelyn P. Ababan-Adlawan, Narcisa P. Ababan, Anita Ababan and Norberto Paralisan, in his capacity as Deputy Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 17, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents, the Ababan family, filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession, Damages and Attorney’s Fees with Preliminary Mandatory Injunction over a lot and buildings in Davao City. They alleged that they acquired possessory rights in 1950, built the original structures, and merely allowed petitioners (their son-in-law and daughter) to reside there in 1991. They claimed petitioners began unlawfully asserting ownership, leasing portions to third parties, making improvements, and disposing of equipment. Petitioners countered that they lawfully possessed the lot and owned the buildings, having introduced substantial improvements, and that the suit arose from a family feud.
The trial court denied the prayer for a preliminary mandatory injunction to eject petitioners but granted a preliminary prohibitory injunction. The order restrained petitioners from collecting rentals from lessees, making further improvements, and disposing of the property. It also directed petitioners to pay rent to private respondents for their own residence and transferred the right to collect rentals from lessees to private respondents. The Court of Appeals affirmed this order. Petitioners elevated the case, contesting the propriety of the writ of preliminary injunction.

ISSUE

Was the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction by the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, proper?

RULING

The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. The issuance of a preliminary injunction is justified to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable injury during the pendency of the main action for recovery of possession. The Court found a clear legal basis for the prohibitory aspects of the injunction. Petitioners’ own motion for reconsideration in the trial court conceded to prohibitions against making further improvements and entering into contracts for disposition, acknowledging these acts could prejudice the rights subject to litigation. Thus, the orders restraining petitioners from (1) making improvements, (2) entering into contracts for disposition, and (3) doing acts prejudicial to private respondents’ rights were affirmed as necessary to preserve the property’s condition pending final adjudication of ownership and possession.
However, the Court set aside the portions of the orders directing petitioners to pay rent and transferring the right to collect rentals. These directives constituted a preliminary mandatory injunction, which requires a higher standard of proof—that the right sought to be protected is very clear and unquestionable. At this preliminary stage, where both parties assert conflicting claims of right, private respondents’ right to collect rentals is not clear and incontrovertible. To protect all interests, the Court modified the order: petitioners shall not pay rent for their own residence but must deposit all collections from lessees with the trial court for safekeeping until the main case is resolved. The trial court was directed to proceed with the hearing on the merits.