G.R. No. 240255 . January 25, 2023.
THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF CALOOCAN, PETITIONER, VS. CARMEL DEVELOPMENT INC., RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Since October 27, 1958, respondent Carmel Development Inc. (CDI) has been the registered owner of three parcels of land with an aggregate area of 156 hectares in North Caloocan City, upon which Barangays 181 and 182, known as “Pangarap Village,” are situated. On September 14, 1973, Presidential Decree No. 293 declared CDI’s titles null and void and opened the lots for disposition to members of the Malacañang Homeowners Association, Inc. (MHAI). On January 29, 1988, the Supreme Court in Tuason v. Register of Deeds declared PD 293 unconstitutional and void ab initio, restoring full ownership to CDI. Following the restoration of its title, CDI installed security measures, including road blockades, along Gregorio Araneta Avenue, a private road within its property, to protect its ownership and prevent entry of informal settlers. On January 6, 2016, petitioner City Government of Caloocan (the City) filed a Complaint for Abatement of Nuisance, with a prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, claiming the road blockades were a public nuisance that endangered residents and hampered the delivery of basic government services. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the City’s application for a writ of preliminary injunction, enjoining CDI from closing and restricting free access to Gregorio Araneta Avenue. The RTC found the City presented sufficient evidence that its government mandate was severely hampered and that CDI was estopped from denying access due to its inaction for almost 30 years after the Tuason ruling. The Court of Appeals (CA) partially granted CDI’s Petition for Certiorari, declaring the RTC’s Order null and void, lifting the writ of preliminary injunction, and setting aside the RTC’s Order insofar as it concerned the injunction. The CA ruled that the City failed to establish a clear and unmistakable right to justify the injunction, as CDI’s ownership of the road is undisputed, and the City’s exercise of governmental functions does not grant it a superior right over private property. The City filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in nullifying the Regional Trial Court’s Orders and lifting the writ of preliminary injunction issued in favor of the City Government of Caloocan.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the City failed to establish a clear and unmistakable right necessary for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. CDI’s ownership of Gregorio Araneta Avenue, a private road, is undisputed. The City’s duty to provide basic services under the Local Government Code does not confer a right to impose its authority upon private property without due process. The installation of security measures by CDI is a valid exercise of its right of ownership under Article 429 of the Civil Code. The City’s claim of a public nuisance was not sufficiently proven, as the blockades were installed to protect CDI’s property rights, not to cause harm to the community. The RTC’s finding of estoppel against CDI was erroneous, as CDI had actively pursued legal actions to assert its ownership rights following the Tuason decision. The Court emphasized that a writ of preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy requiring the applicant to prove a clear legal right, and the City failed to meet this burden. The CA correctly ruled that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the injunction.