G.R. No. 195374, March 10, 2014.
Pedro Lukang, Petitioner, vs. Pagbilao Development Corporation and Eduardo T. Rodriguez, Respondents.

FACTS

Arsenio Lukang cohabited with Leoncia Martinez, with whom he had ten children, including petitioner Pedro Lukang. During their cohabitation, they acquired several real properties in Pagbilao, Quezon, registered in the name of “ARSENIO LUKANG, married to Mercedes Dee, 1/2 share and Leoncia Martinez, single, 1/2 share.” After Arsenio’s death, his heirs executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate but did not partition the properties. Later, Mercedes Dee and her three children executed a separate partition document excluding Leoncia and her children. Simeon Lukang, a son of Arsenio and Leoncia, filed a petition for issuance of owner’s duplicate copies of titles for other properties acquired with Leoncia, which were allegedly held in trust, and subsequently donated or sold them. Mercedes, through Rosalina, also obtained new titles for the original four properties, segregating a half portion for Leoncia and dividing the other half among herself and her siblings. Leoncia and her children, including Pedro, filed a complaint for annulment of extrajudicial partition and titles (Civil Case No. 90-124), consolidated with another case (Civil Case No. 89-79). Pedro registered adverse claims and notices of lis pendens on the titles. In 1993, while the cases were pending, respondent Pagbilao Development Corporation (PDC) purchased six of the subject properties from Simeon, Mercedes, and Rosalina, and new titles were issued in its name, carrying over the annotations. When Pedro and the other heirs learned of the sale, they filed an application for a writ of preliminary injunction, alleging they were in actual possession and that PDC had entered the properties, destroyed structures, and started construction without consent. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted a temporary restraining order and later issued the writ of preliminary injunction. PDC filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), which nullified the RTC’s orders, ruling that Pedro’s right was contingent on the case outcome and that PDC, as registered owner, had the right to enjoy the properties. Pedro filed this petition.

ISSUE

Whether or not the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion when it issued the May 13, 2008 Order granting the writ of preliminary injunction.

RULING

No, the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court reversed the CA decision and reinstated the RTC’s order granting the writ of preliminary injunction. The Court held that for a writ of preliminary injunction to issue, the applicant must show: (a) a right in esse or a clear and unmistakable right; (b) a violation of that right; and (c) a urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. Pedro sufficiently established a clear legal right—his claim as co-owner and heir, supported by the pending cases for annulment and the annotated notices of lis pendens on the titles, which put PDC on notice of the adverse claim. PDC was a transferee pendente lite, and its purchase was subject to the outcome of the pending litigation. The Court found that the RTC did not pre-judge the main case but merely preserved the status quo to prevent irreparable injury, as PDC’s actions in entering the property and constructing improvements threatened to alter the physical possession. The RTC acted within its sound discretion, and no grave abuse was present. The writ was a preservative remedy to maintain the status quo during the pendency of the suit.