G.R. No. 159124; January 17, 2005
MARCELA GONZALES ALMEIDA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ROBERT P. SY, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Marcela Gonzales Almeida filed a complaint for quieting of title against respondent Robert P. Sy and others concerning Lot 896 of the Tala Estate in Caloocan City. Almeida claimed ownership through an Assignment of Sale Certificate dated 1926 executed by Nicanor Jacinto in favor of her father, Severino Gonzales. She alleged that subsequent titles, including TCT No. 270862 under Sy’s name, were void as they originated from a falsified 1936 deed. Sy purchased the lot in 1993 from Marcelina Sarangaya, a prior registered owner, and constructed a factory thereon. Almeida sought a writ of preliminary injunction to stop Sy from further developing the property, asserting her ownership and possession through an overseer since 1994.
The Regional Trial Court granted Almeida’s application for a preliminary prohibitory injunction, enjoining Sy from subdividing or selling the lot. The RTC also later issued a mandatory injunction, ordering Sy to vacate and demolish his structures. Sy challenged these orders via certiorari in the Court of Appeals, arguing that Almeida failed to prove a clear legal right to the injunctive reliefs.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly found grave abuse of discretion in the RTC’s issuance of the writs of preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA decision, holding that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. For a preliminary injunction to issue, the applicant must establish a clear and unmistakable right to be protected. Almeida failed to prove such a right. Her claim rested on an unregistered Assignment of Sale Certificate from 1926, which is merely a contract to sell and does not constitute conclusive evidence of ownership, especially against a Torrens title. In contrast, Sy derived his title from a transfer certificate of title (TCT No. 270862), which enjoys the presumption of validity. A certificate of title under the Torrens system is evidence of an indefeasible title to the property.
Furthermore, Almeida did not demonstrate any legal right to possession warranting a mandatory injunction. Her claim of possession through an overseer was insufficient and uncorroborated by strong evidence, whereas Sy was in actual possession, having built a factory on the land. The injunctive writs, being preservative remedies, require a showing that the invasion of the right is material and substantial. Almeida’s evidence was weak and speculative, failing to overcome the validity of Sy’s registered title. The RTC’s orders, which effectively transferred possession and mandated demolition based on an unsubstantiated claim, constituted an arbitrary exercise of power, correctly annulled by the appellate court.