G.R. No. L-9519; April 15, 1957
EUTIQUIO TORRE, TRANQUILINO TORRE and BENITO TORRE, petitioners, vs. HON. JOSE R. QUERUBIN, Judge of the Court of First Instance, Branch II, of Capiz, and SATURNINA UY BIEN PIAO, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Saturnina Uy Bien Piao filed a complaint (Civil Case No. K-576) alleging she was the owner of Lot No. 1574, having been adjudicated the lot in a prior case (Civil Case No. K-331) and placed in actual and material possession by the provincial sheriff on February 26, 1954. She claimed that on or about August 15, 1954, petitioners Eutiquio, Tranquilino, and Benito Torre, without legal right, entered the land by force and intimidation, deprived her of possession and the enjoyment of its products, and refused to vacate despite demands. In her complaint, she prayed for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to restore her to possession. The respondent Judge initially denied the petition for the writ on February 5, 1955, but upon Saturnina’s motion for reconsideration, issued an order on March 21, 1955, granting the writ of preliminary injunction upon the filing of a bond, after finding that Saturnina had indeed been placed in possession by the sheriff and that the petitioners’ occupation began only after such delivery. The petitioners filed the present petition for certiorari to annul the order granting the writ.

ISSUE

Whether or not the trial court (respondent Judge) was authorized to issue a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction during the pendency of Civil Case No. K-576 for the recovery of possession of real property.

RULING

Yes. The petition for certiorari is denied. Under Article 539 of the New Civil Code, a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction is available to a plaintiff during the pendency of an action to recover possession. The article provides that a possessor deprived of possession through forcible entry may, within ten days from the filing of the complaint, move for such a writ to restore possession. The law changed the prior rule that deemed it improper to issue a preliminary injunction when the defendant had already taken complete material possession, as its effect would be to dispossess one party and give possession to another without a full trial. The Code Commission’s report indicated the change was to address prolonged litigations where an owner is deprived of possession despite an immediate right thereto. In this case, the trial court found that Saturnina was actually placed in possession by the sheriff under a final judgment and that the petitioners subsequently deprived her of that possession. Therefore, the issuance of the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction by the respondent Judge was authorized under Article 539 of the New Civil Code.