GR 134343; (January, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 134343 . January 30, 2001. MAXIMO A. SAVELLANO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, NENA DE GUZMAN, BEN DE GUZMAN and CECILIO CRUZ, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Maximo A. Savellano Jr., claiming to be the registered owner of three parcels of land in San Mateo, Rizal, filed a complaint for recovery of possession with a prayer for preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction against private respondents. He alleged that respondents occupied portions of his titled property without his consent. In their Answer, respondents asserted peaceful possession since 1976, presented tax declarations and receipts, and claimed that their occupied premises were not covered by petitioner’s certificates of title.
To resolve the conflicting claims on the identity and location of the properties, the trial court, upon parties’ agreement, ordered a survey by the Bureau of Lands. The survey report indicated encroachments within petitioner’s claimed lots. Based on petitioner’s evidence of ownership and citing the case of Santos v. Court of Appeals, the trial court granted the writs of preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction, effectively ordering respondents to vacate the property.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly issued the writs of preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction, thereby dispossessing the private respondents prior to a full trial on the merits.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision nullifying the trial court’s order. The Court reiterated the well-settled principle that a writ of injunction should not be used to transfer possession of property from one party to another when the applicant’s title or right of possession has not been clearly and conclusively established. The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo ante litem until the merits of the case can be fully adjudicated.
In this case, the core dispute—whether the respondents’ occupied premises are actually within the boundaries of petitioner’s titled property—remains unresolved. The survey report, while indicating encroachments, was contested by respondents on technical grounds. Granting the mandatory injunction to oust respondents based on this contested report effectively decided the main issue of possession without a full trial. This preempted the final judgment and deprived respondents of the opportunity to conclusively prove their claim of separate possession. The trial court’s reliance on Santos v. Court of Appeals was misplaced, as the exception allowing injunctive relief to oust a mere intruder applies only when the applicant’s right is incontrovertible. Here, the conflicting claims on the identity of the land made the right unclear. Therefore, the Court of Appeals correctly held that the issuance of the writ was a patent error, as it disposed of the main case without trial.