G.R. No. 215807 , January 25, 2017
Rosario E. Cahambing, Petitioner vs. Victor Espinosa and Juana Ang, Respondents

FACTS

Petitioner Rosario Cahambing and respondent Victor Espinosa are siblings and heirs to properties, including Lot 354, of their deceased parents. Their mother, Brigida Espinosa, initially bequeathed her share of Lot 354 to Victor but later revoked her will, giving her half-share to Rosario. After their father’s death, Brigida and Victor executed an Extrajudicial Partition, subdividing the lot and adjudicating a portion to Victor, who obtained a title. Rosario, excluded from this partition, filed an action for its annulment (Civil Case No. R-2912). A commercial building stands on the lot, with Rosario collecting rent from four tenants, including Pacifica Agrivet Supplies.
During pre-trial, a status quo order was issued. Victor, through his attorney-in-fact Juana Ang, later applied for a writ of preliminary injunction, alleging Rosario violated the status quo by having her sons occupy a space leased to another of Victor’s tenants, Jhanel’s Pharmacy. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the writ. Rosario challenged this, arguing Victor himself first violated the status quo by wresting control of the Pacifica Agrivet space from her and that the requisites for an injunction were absent. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s orders.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s grant of the writ of preliminary injunction in favor of respondent Victor Espinosa.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ rulings. The Court clarified that a preliminary injunction is a preservative remedy to maintain the status quo ante litem, defined as the last actual, peaceable, and uncontested state of affairs before the controversy. The sole objective is to preserve the subject matter of the litigation pending final adjudication on the merits. The RTC’s determination on the propriety of an injunction is entitled to great respect and will not be interfered with absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion.
The Court found no such abuse. The RTC correctly focused on the specific act alleged to have disturbed the status quo: the entry of Rosario’s sons into the pharmacy space leased to Victor’s tenant. This act constituted a clear violation of the existing status quo order. Rosario’s allegation that Victor first violated the order by taking over the Pacifica Agrivet space pertained to a separate incident. This separate claim did not justify Rosario’s subsequent violation and was a matter to be threshed out in the main case for annulment of partition. The injunction was properly issued to prevent further disruption of the peaceable possession pending the resolution of the main case. The Court emphasized that the existence of a separate violation by the other party does not automatically bar injunctive relief if the applicant has a clear legal right that needs protection from an actual or threatened violation.