G.R. No. L-15149, December 13, 1920
DOLORES RUSTIA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MAXIMIANO FRANCO, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS:
Plaintiff Dolores Rustia filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga to secure an injunction restraining the defendants from cutting bamboo from a parcel of land she claimed to own, and to recover damages for bamboo already cut. A preliminary injunction was issued. Some defendants denied involvement, while threeCecilio Franco, Benito Laren, and Mariano Manaliliadmitted cutting bamboo but asserted ownership of the land, claiming it belonged to Benito Laren, Mariano Manalili, and Gregoria Dizon.

The evidence established that the defendants had cut bamboo from a cañaveral on both sides of the estero Macabucod in various years. The plaintiff proved her title to the land on the north side of the estero, tracing it back to her grandmother, Doña Eulalia Bartolome, who acquired it from Potenciano Eugenio y Camacho, a composition title holder from 1888. The property was assigned to Rustia in a 1904 partition among Bartolome’s heirs. Rustia maintained actual possession since the partition, subject only to the defendants’ intrusions.

The trial judge dismissed the case, relying on Liongson vs. Martinez, which held that a preliminary injunction should not be used to oust a person in possession claiming ownership. The court concluded an injunction suit could not be maintained, prompting Rustia’s appeal.

ISSUE:
Whether a permanent injunction can be granted to restrain acts of trespass and protect the possession of a landowner when the defendants, who are the trespassers, assert ownership over the disputed property.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision.

The Court distinguished the present case from Liongson vs. Martinez. The doctrine in Liongson applies when a plaintiff out of possession seeks a preliminary injunction to disturb a defendant in actual possession claiming ownership. Here, the plaintiff Rustia was in actual possession, and the defendants were the intruders. The injunction is a legitimate remedy to protect an owner in possession from repeated, intermittent trespasses by strangers, such as repeatedly cutting wood or bamboo. The legal remedy of an independent action for each trespass is inadequate when future repetitions are certain.

The Court clarified that American authorities cited in Liongson, which required a separate action at law to establish title before equity could grant an injunction, are inapplicable in the Philippines where courts exercise both legal and equitable jurisdiction. In this case, the pleadings placed the ownership of the property directly in issue. The evidence sufficiently established Rustia’s title and possession.

Therefore, the Supreme Court rendered judgment declaring plaintiff Dolores Rustia entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from cutting bamboo from the described property. No damages were awarded due to uncertain proof. The defendants reserved the right to institute an appropriate action to try title. No costs were awarded.