G.R. No. 20048; March 2, 1923
NICOMEDES DE LOS SANTOS, petitioner, vs. Honorable EMILIO MAPA, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Nicomedes de los Santos owned an undivided seven-eleventh portion of a parcel of land registered under the Torrens system (Certificate of Title No. 469), acquired by purchase in 1919, with the sale duly annotated on the title. In 1921, a judgment was rendered against Juan Medina 2.º (the remote predecessor-in-interest of Lorenza Veneracion, who owned another undivided one-eleventh portion) in favor of respondents Maria Cabrera, et al. Upon execution of the judgment, the sheriff levied attachment on the entire property. De los Santos filed a third-party claim, but the judgment creditors posted an indemnity bond, and the sheriff proceeded with the attachment and scheduled a sale, excluding only Veneracion’s portion. De los Santos filed a separate civil case (No. 2770) in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Nueva Ecija and obtained an ex parte preliminary injunction against the sale. Later, the respondent judge, presiding over the same case, dissolved the injunction without requiring a bond from the judgment creditors and denied a motion for reconsideration. De los Santos filed this petition for certiorari, alleging the judge acted in excess of jurisdiction and praying for the annulment of the orders dissolving the injunction and for a permanent injunction.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in dissolving the preliminary injunction issued in Civil Case No. 2770, warranting the issuance of a writ of certiorari.

RULING

No. The petition for certiorari is dismissed. The demurrer filed by the respondents is sustained. The Court held that the CFI of Nueva Ecija had jurisdiction to issue and dissolve injunctions in cases pending before it under the Organic Act and the Code of Civil Procedure. The act of dissolving an injunction, even if allegedly erroneous, does not per se constitute an excess of jurisdiction. The petitioner’s complaint failed to allege facts showing that the dissolution was done without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner’s rights were adequately protected because his ownership was registered under the Torrens system and duly annotated on the certificate of title, and the judgment creditors had posted an indemnity bond in favor of the sheriff in response to his third-party claim. Thus, no damage could result to his rights from the attachment and sale. The petitioner was granted leave to amend his complaint.