G.R. No. 202342, July 19, 2017
AMA LAND, INC., Petitioner vs. WACK WACK RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent

FACTS

AMA Land, Inc. (AMALI) proposed a commercial and residential building project in Wack Wack Village, Mandaluyong City. After securing various permits, AMALI notified the Wack Wack Residents’ Association, Inc. (WWRAI) of its intention to use Fordham Street as an access road and staging area. Receiving no response, AMALI enclosed the site. In 1996, AMALI filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) seeking a temporary and permanent easement of right of way over a portion of Fordham Street, along with injunctive relief to prevent WWRAI from obstructing access. The RTC granted a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction in 1997, allowing temporary use. The project was halted in 1998 due to a financial crisis. When AMALI resumed construction in 2010 under a new building permit issued pursuant to its corporate rehabilitation, WWRAI filed an urgent motion for a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction with the RTC to halt construction, which the RTC denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly reversed the RTC’s denial of WWRAI’s application for a preliminary injunction and ordered the RTC to issue such injunctive relief pending the determination of the petition for a permanent easement.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The core legal logic revolves around the requirements for establishing a compulsory easement of right of way under Article 649 of the Civil Code and the propriety of injunctive relief. For a compulsory right of way, the claimant must prove: (1) the dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables and is without adequate outlet to a public highway; (2) the right of way claimed is at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate; and (3) proper indemnity is paid. The RTC’s 1997 order granting a preliminary mandatory injunction was based on AMALI’s claim of isolation. However, the Supreme Court found that AMALI failed to conclusively prove the isolation of its property. Evidence suggested alternative access via EDSA, and AMALI’s own petition indicated the use of Fordham Street was for convenience as a “staging area,” not due to a lack of outlet. Since the very existence of the right being asserted (the easement) was seriously in doubt, the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying WWRAI’s application for a preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo and prevent alleged irreparable injury from continued construction. The preliminary injunction was necessary to preserve the rights of the parties during the litigation, as the construction, if allowed to proceed, could render the main case moot. The Court also upheld the CA’s directive for WWRAI to amend its petition to sue in a representative capacity, ensuring proper procedural compliance.