G.R. No. 141849; February 13, 2007
ISABEL JAEL MARQUEZ, et al., Petitioners, vs. THE PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC Br. 58, Lucena City, et al., Respondents.

FACTS

Marcial M. Marquez, an incorporator of Lucena Entrepreneur and Agri-Industrial Development Corporation (LEAD), secured an agricultural loan from the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). The loan, intended for a fishing vessel, required the principals, including Marquez, to be jointly and severally liable. The loan was secured by real estate mortgages on properties of other principals and, later, an additional loan was secured by a second mortgage on Marquez’s own property. After the vessel sank, DBP collected insurance proceeds and applied them to the loan. Due to a remaining default, DBP initiated extra-judicial foreclosure of the mortgaged properties, including Marquez’s.
Marquez filed a complaint for Damages and Cancellation of Mortgage with a prayer for a preliminary injunction to stop the foreclosure sale. The trial court denied the injunction, finding no clear right to the writ. The Court of Appeals affirmed this denial. Marquez’s heirs (the petitioners) elevated the case, arguing the trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying the injunction and that the mortgaged property was a family home exempt from execution.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the application for a writ of preliminary injunction.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ rulings. A writ of preliminary injunction is a preservative remedy requiring the applicant to establish a clear and unmistakable right to be protected. The Court found that Marquez failed to prove such a right to restrain the foreclosure. The real estate mortgage he executed was valid and the loan obligations were undisputed. His claim of damage from DBP’s alleged negligence in project supervision pertained to the main action for damages and did not constitute a clear legal right warranting injunctive relief at the preliminary stage.
Furthermore, the argument that the property was a family home was unavailing. The property was unquestionably mortgaged by Marquez himself to secure the corporate loan for which he was solidarily liable. The nature of the property as a potential family home does not invalidate a voluntarily constituted mortgage. The Court emphasized that DBP was properly exercising its contractual right to foreclose upon the debtor’s default. The denial of the injunction was thus a proper exercise of judicial discretion, not a grave abuse thereof.