G.R. No. L-1251; August 30, 1947
MARIA CASUPANAN, petitioner, vs. VALERIANO FUGOSO, Mayor of Manila, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Maria Casupanan was the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 1181 of the Manila Court of First Instance. She claimed to be the occupant of stalls Nos. 280-283 of the Quinta Market in Manila and sought a judgment declaring her as the true and lawful occupant. She also prayed for a preliminary and later permanent injunction to restrain the defendants (including Mayor Valeriano Fugoso, Judge Emilio Peña, the City Health Officer, the market administrator, and the market master) from ejecting her or disturbing her possession. The respondent Judge, Hon. Emilio Peña, tried and decided the case. The decision, rendered on January 28, 1947, adjudged that Albina Elizaga was the former lawful occupant of the stalls. This judgment was based on the facts found in the decision and on Municipal Board Resolution No. 50, approved December 12, 1945. This resolution provided for the adjudication of market stalls to actual occupants as of a certain date, with a preference for those who could prove they were the adjudicated occupants on December 8, 1941, and had not abandoned the stall or had abandoned it for justifiable reason, provided they registered a claim by October 19, 1945. In the present special civil action, petitioner asks this Court to inhibit the respondents from enforcing her ejectment and from further proceedings in the main case, and to issue a preliminary injunction. She complains that the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion by not deciding on the preliminary injunction and instead setting the case for hearing on the merits after a delay. Respondents counter that the court refused the preliminary injunction because it was not convinced of sufficient grounds, considering the circumstances and the opposition filed. The decision in the main case found that Albina Elizaga was the legal occupant from October 1941 to February 1945, that the stalls became unsuitable after the battle for Manila’s liberation, and that Elizaga filed an application on October 4, 1945, and was adjudicated the stalls on May 7, 1946. It was also shown that petitioner did not present any application for lease during the period prescribed by Resolution No. 50.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in refusing to issue a writ of preliminary injunction in Civil Case No. 1181.

RULING

No. The Court found no showing of an abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent Judge in refusing to issue the preliminary injunction. The facts found in the subsequent decision on the merits fully justified the court’s attitude. Furthermore, since the main case had already been decided on the merits, the remedy of appeal became available to the petitioner, rendering the present petition unnecessary. On appeal, petitioner could ask the appellate court for a preliminary injunction or other ancillary process if desired. The petition was dismissed, with costs against petitioner.