G.R. No. 113627 . February 6, 2001.
CORAZON C. SHIN and CHUNG HWA KYOON, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ALORASAN REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, and NORDY DIPLOMA, respondents.

FACTS

Alorasan Realty Development Corporation is the registered owner of a parcel of land on Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City. It leased the property to Nordy Diploma, who subsequently represented himself as the owner and subleased it to Chung Hwa Kyoon for three years, with advance rentals paid. Chung later assigned his rights to Corazon Shin, and they formed a partnership, introducing substantial improvements to operate a restaurant and disco. They negotiated with Diploma for a longer lease and proceeded to construct a building. However, Alorasan discovered the construction, objected, and terminated Diploma’s lease, demanding he vacate. Alorasan then filed an unlawful detainer case against Diploma in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC).
Meanwhile, Shin and Chung, facing a stop construction order from the Pasay City Building Official, filed a complaint for damages with a prayer for a preliminary injunction in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against Alorasan, Diploma, and the Building Official. The RTC granted the writ, enjoining the respondents from disturbing petitioners’ possession. Alorasan challenged this injunction before the Court of Appeals. Subsequently, the MeTC decided the ejectment case in favor of Alorasan, ordering Diploma to vacate, a decision which became final and executory.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the Regional Trial Court.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not err. A writ of preliminary injunction requires a clear showing of a right to be protected. Petitioners, as sublessees of Diploma, derived their possessory rights solely from him. The legal principle is that a sublessee can invoke no right superior to that of the sublessor. When Alorasan, the true owner, lawfully terminated Diploma’s lease and successfully obtained a final ejectment judgment against him, Diploma’s right of possession—and consequently, any right he could convey to his sublessees—was extinguished. Petitioners, therefore, had no clear legal right to remain on the property to justify the protective writ of injunction. Their proper recourse for any losses incurred is an action for damages against their immediate sublessor, Nordy Diploma, based on his misrepresentation. The Court affirmed the appellate decision, noting that any claim for damages by petitioners must be determined in a full trial on the merits of their separate damage suit.