G.R. No. 207938 , October 11, 2017
Evy Construction and Development Corporation, Petitioner vs. Valiant Roll Forming Sales Corporation, Respondent

FACTS

Petitioner Evy Construction purchased a parcel of land from Linda Ang and Senen Uyan in September 2007. At the time of the sale, the title only bore a notice of adverse claim by Ang. However, before Evy Construction could register its deed of absolute sale, a Notice of Levy on Attachment was annotated on the title on September 18, 2007, pursuant to a writ issued in a separate civil case (Valiant vs. Angeli Lumber) involving the seller, Ang. Upon registration, a new title was issued to Evy Construction, but it carried the annotation of the prior levy. Valiant later won its case against Ang, and a writ of execution was issued against her properties, including the land sold to Evy Construction. The property was subsequently sold at a public auction to Valiant.
Evy Construction filed a complaint for quieting of title and damages, with an application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or preliminary injunction. It sought to enjoin the Register of Deeds from compelling the surrender of its owner’s duplicate certificate of title and from annotating further transactions related to the execution sale. The Regional Trial Court denied the TRO application, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which found no grave abuse of discretion. The CA held that Evy Construction failed to establish a clear right to the injunctive relief or demonstrate the requisite grave and irreparable injury.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s denial of petitioner’s application for a TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed rulings. The Court emphasized that a writ of preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, and the applicant bears the burden of proving a clear and unmistakable right to its issuance. The requisites are: (1) a right in esse or a clear and unmistakable right to be protected; (2) a violation of that right; and (3) the urgent necessity for the writ to prevent serious and irreparable injury.
The Court found that Evy Construction failed to establish a clear legal right. Its claim of ownership, based on a sale that occurred after the annotation of the levy, was precisely the subject of its main action for quieting of title. Granting the injunction based on this contested claim would constitute a prejudgment of the main case. More critically, the Court ruled that Evy Construction did not prove the element of grave and irreparable injury. Its alleged injury—the withdrawal of potential investors due to the cloud on the title—was considered a pecuniary and compensable damage. The law defines “irreparable injury” as one that is continuous, repeated, and incapable of being fully compensated by damages. Since the alleged business losses could be quantified and recovered through a judgment for damages, and considering Valiant had posted an indemnity bond to answer for such damages, the injury was not irreparable. The trial court’s denial of the provisional relief, based on these deficiencies, was thus proper and devoid of grave abuse of discretion.