GR 65532; (August, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 65532 August 31, 1992.
CONCEPCION PELAEZ VDA. DE TAN, JORGE P. TAN, JR., GREGORIO P. TAN, EDUARDO P. TAN, MANUEL P. TAN, CONCEPCION TAN AQUINO AND BENJAMIN P. TAN, petitioners, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, HON. FRANCISCO C. PEDROSA, Judge of the Judicial Region, Branch XII, Ormoc City, and SPOUSES EMETERIO LARRAZABAL AND ADELINA Y. LARRAZABAL, respondents.
FACTS
Gregorio Yrastorza was the registered owner of four adjacent parcels of land in Ormoc City. On February 13, 1982, he sold three of these lots to Atty. Jorge P. Tan, husband of petitioner Concepcion Pelaez Vda. de Tan and father of the other petitioners, via a Deed of Absolute Sale. The subject of the case is the “First Lot,” described in the deed as Lot No. 1 with an area of 677 square meters and covered by TCT No. 2899. However, the true and correct technical description in TCT No. 2899 (and its successor, TCT No. 4020 issued to the Tans) states the area is only 463 square meters. The improvements on this lot, the Metro Theatre, partly occupy an additional 214 square meters of an adjacent lot (Lot I, Psd-177251) still owned by Yrastorza, which he later sold to the private respondents, the Larrazabal spouses. The Larrazabals filed a complaint for Recovery of Ownership and Possession with a petition for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to recover the 214 square meters occupied by the theatre stage. The respondent judge granted the writ, concluding the 677 sq.m. area in the deed was a clerical error and the sale only covered the 463 sq.m. in the title. The petitioners challenged this order via a special civil action, which the Intermediate Appellate Court dismissed. The petitioners then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, recognizing the Larrazabals’ right over the disputed 214 square meters.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court and dismissed the petition. The Court held there was no reversible error. The identity of the land sold is defined by the boundaries in the Torrens title (TCT No. 2899/4020), which clearly enclosed an area of 463 square meters, not the erroneous 677 square meters stated in the deed of sale. Gregorio Yrastorza could not have sold more than what was stated in his title. The titled property of the Larrazabals (the adjacent lot) cannot be attacked collaterally. The Larrazabals demonstrated a clear right to the disputed portion, and the necessity for the writ was supported by the urgency of possessing the property and the dilapidated state of the structure. The petitioners were sufficiently secured by the injunction bond.