G.R. No. 142255. January 26, 2007.
SAMAHAN NG MASANG PILIPINO SA MAKATI, INC. (SMPMI), represented by Chairman Robert L. Mora, Sr., Petitioner, vs. BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BCDA), represented by BCDA Chairman Rogelio Singson, and MUNICIPALITY OF TAGUIG, represented by Mayor Ricardo D. Papa, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Samahan ng Masang Pilipino sa Makati, Inc. (SMPMI), representing over 20,000 families residing in portions of Fort Bonifacio, filed a Petition for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and Injunction. The petition sought to prohibit respondent Bases Conversion Development Authority (BCDA) from evicting its members pursuant to notices sent by BCDA and the Municipality of Taguig. SMPMI anchored its petition on the claim that the land occupied by its members is still covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2288 in the name of the United States of America, which has not been cancelled. It argued that the Philippine government, and by extension BCDA, does not own the property, making the eviction illegal.
BCDA countered that ownership of Fort Bonifacio was transferred to the Philippine Government and subsequently to BCDA by virtue of Republic Act No. 7227 (the Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992) and related executive issuances. It asserted that the lots in question are covered by special patents issued in its favor. BCDA further argued that SMPMI has no cause of action, is not the real party-in-interest, and that its members have not demonstrated any ownership or vested right over the occupied lots that would warrant injunctive relief.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should issue a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the eviction of SMPMI members from Fort Bonifacio.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and refused to issue the injunctive relief. The Court held that a writ of preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable injury, issuable only upon a clear and unmistakable right that has been violated. The petitioner failed to establish such a right. The Court found that BCDA has a prima facie right over the property, supported by RA 7227, Executive Order No. 40, and special patents issued by the President. The property’s status as government land, formerly part of a military reservation, had been conclusively settled in a prior case (Acting Registrars of Land Titles and Deeds of Pasay City, Pasig and Makati v. RTC, Branch 57, Makati).
Conversely, SMPMI and its members failed to prove any legal right—such as ownership, a lease, or a permit—to occupy the land. Their possession, without any color of title, is merely that of squatters or informal settlers. The law does not protect possession acquired by intrusion or trespass on government property. Furthermore, the Court noted that the eviction process being undertaken appeared to consider the provisions of the Urban Development and Housing Act (RA 7279) regarding the welfare of affected families. Since SMPMI did not demonstrate a clear legal right to remain on the property, and considering BCDA’s prima facie lawful ownership and the public interest in implementing the bases conversion law, the balance of equity tilted against issuing an injunction. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.