GR 166558; (March, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 166558 March 28, 2007
Nora Bueno Pasion, Petitioner, vs. Simplicio R. Melegrito, represented by Anselma Timones, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Simplicio Melegrito filed a forcible entry complaint against the Bueno sisters (Filipina, Divina, and Regina) before the MCTC, alleging they constructed a house on his land without consent. The MCTC ruled for the respondent, ordering the sisters to vacate, remove the structure, and pay damages. This decision was reinstated by the Court of Appeals after an RTC reversal. Upon finality, a writ of demolition was issued.
Petitioner Nora Bueno Pasion, sister to the defendants and claiming to be the respondent’s agricultural tenant on a portion of the land, filed a separate complaint for injunction with the RTC. She sought to restrain the demolition, arguing she was not a party to the original ejectment case and that she owned and occupied the house slated for demolition, presenting a building permit and tax declaration as proof. The RTC denied her application for a preliminary injunction.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the RTC’s denial of the preliminary injunction, which refusal was based on the findings in the concluded ejectment case against the Bueno sisters.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the appellate court’s decision. The legal logic centers on the nature of a preliminary injunction and the principle of conclusiveness of judgment. A preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy granted only upon a clear showing of a right to be protected, which right must be clear and unmistakable. The RTC, in denying the injunction, relied on the factual findings from the finalized ejectment case (Civil Case No. 1243-99), which definitively established that the house was built by the Bueno sisters, not by petitioner Pasion.
The Court emphasized the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment, wherein facts and issues actually and directly resolved in a former final judgment cannot be relitigated in a subsequent case, even if the parties are different. Here, the ownership and possession of the house were already settled against the Bueno sisters. Petitioner, claiming under her sisters, cannot collaterally attack that final judgment by asserting a contrary fact of ownership in a new proceeding for injunction. Her remedy was to intervene in the original ejectment case, which she did not do. Thus, she failed to establish a clear legal right warranting the extraordinary relief of a preliminary injunction. The trial court’s discretion was not gravely abused.