GR 115741; (March, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 115741 March 9, 1999
HEIRS OF JOAQUIN ASUNCION, represented by DEMETRIA DUROLFO ASUNCION, petitioners, vs. HON. MARGARITO GERVACIO, JR., Presiding Judge of Branch 29, RTC, Cabanatuan City, JESUS SANTIAGO, and MAXIMINO DELA CRUZ, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the re-opening of a judicial decree of registration and annulment of title, with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. They alleged that petitioners, through fraud, obtained Original Certificate of Title No. P-15922 over the disputed land. Petitioners, in their answer, asserted absolute ownership evidenced by said title and actual possession, but due to a typographical error, failed to specifically deny the paragraphs in the complaint supporting the injunction application. The RTC granted the writ, enjoining petitioners from entering and cultivating the land. Petitioners’ motions for reconsideration were denied on procedural grounds, prompting them to file this petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, alleging grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and annulled the writ. The legal logic is twofold. First, the Court held that while the Rules deem material averments not specifically denied as admitted, this procedural rule cannot override substantive rights when its application results in manifest injustice. The petitioners’ failure to deny was a mere typographical error, and their ownership and possession were substantiated by an Original Certificate of Title. Second, and more critically, a writ of preliminary injunction is a preservative remedy requiring the applicant to prove a clear and unmistakable right. The Court emphasized that injunction is not proper to transfer possession of property from one party to another, especially where the party in possession holds a Torrens title. Private respondents failed to present substantial proof of ownership to establish a clear right superior to the petitioners’ registered title. Therefore, the issuance of the writ, which effectively dispossessed the titled owners, constituted grave abuse of discretion as it was issued without legal basis and in violation of established doctrine that injunction should not be used to disturb a holder of a Torrens certificate of title. The Court also noted that the petition, though within the concurrent jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, was properly taken cognizance of in the interest of a speedy disposition.