G.R. No. L-40069 August 11, 1988
HEIRS OF PEDRO GACUTAN, represented by PEDRITO GACUTAN and JESUS GACUTAN, petitioners, vs. HON. MELQUIADES S. SUCALDITO, in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Sur, ALEJANDRO DALIPOSON, MERCEDES PERALTA and TRANQUILINO DEL ROSARIO, respondents.

FACTS

The private respondents, Alejandro Daliposon, Mercedes Peralta, and Tranquilino del Rosario, filed a complaint for recovery of ownership, annulment of sale, and damages against the petitioners, the heirs of Pedro Gacutan. They alleged they were the original owners of a parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-354. They claimed to have sold portions to Del Rosario and Pedro Gacutan but later discovered that a 1966 deed of sale, containing their forged signatures, led to the cancellation of their title and the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-2651 in Gacutan’s name. They prayed for reconveyance and sought a preliminary prohibitory injunction, alleging the petitioners were poised to take possession of the portions they still occupied and collect rentals from their tenants.
The petitioners, as defendants, asserted ownership and possession of the entire property under Gacutan’s Torrens title. The respondent court conducted a hearing on the injunction application. The private respondents presented testimonies, including from tenants, to show their actual possession. One tenant, Rominico Acosaga, testified he was coerced by the petitioners into surrendering the owner’s share. The trial court granted the writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction upon the posting of a bond, enjoining the petitioners from entering the disputed portions or collecting rentals.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The issuance of the writ was legally sound. A preliminary injunction is precisely designed to preserve the status quo between litigants and prevent possible irreparable violation of rights during the pendency of the suit. The trial court conducted a proper hearing where both parties were afforded opportunity to present their evidence. The private respondents successfully established a prima facie case by demonstrating their actual possession and control of the contested portions at the commencement of the action, casting doubt on the validity of the petitioners’ title derived from the allegedly fraudulent deed.
The court found that allowing the petitioners, who claimed under a Torrens title now under serious challenge, to take possession or collect rentals during litigation would be detrimental to the private respondents’ rights. The requirement and posting of an injunction bond adequately protected the petitioners against potential damages should the injunction later be found unwarranted. Thus, the trial court acted within its discretionary power to prevent potential injustice pending the resolution of the main action for reconveyance. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.