G.R. No. L-50548 November 25, 1982
CONCHING ALVARO, et al., petitioners, vs. Honorable Judge HOSPICIO ZAPATA, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents Alberto Arrastia, as administrator, and Gil B. Baluyut, as lessee, filed a complaint for forcible entry with damages against petitioners, alleging they are co-owners/administrators of a 116-hectare sugarland in Lubao, Pampanga. They claimed petitioners, by means of force and stealth, illegally occupied the hacienda in May 1978, constructing houses and conducting agricultural activities, thereby depriving them of prior peaceful possession. They attached a motion for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. After an ex-parte hearing, respondent Judge Hospicio Zapata granted the writ on February 28, 1979.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration, asserting they were legitimate farmers and tenants in prior physical possession even before Arrastia’s administration and the lease contract. They submitted leasehold contracts to support their claim. They also manifested that the injunction bond posted by the bonding company was unauthorized to issue judicial bonds. The respondent judge denied their motion to lift the injunction, relying on certifications from the Ministry of Agrarian Reform stating the land was non-tenanted and not covered by agrarian reform.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing and refusing to dissolve the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the orders and the writ. The issuance constituted grave abuse of discretion. A preliminary mandatory injunction, which commands the performance of an act like restoring possession, is an extraordinary remedy only granted in extreme urgency where the right is very clear. Here, private respondents’ right to possession was not clear. The certifications from the Ministry of Agrarian Reform, which the judge relied upon, referred to other parcels of land, not the specific land in dispute.
Conversely, petitioners presented prima facie evidence of their tenancy through leasehold contracts, claiming possession long before the complained acts. By issuing the writ based on inapplicable certifications and refusing to dissolve it despite the presentation of tenancy documents, the judge effectively decided the merits of the ejectment case without a full trial. This violated the fundamental rule that a mandatory injunction cannot be used to oust a party whose right to possession has not been clearly established. The control over an interlocutory writ like an injunction remains with the court, and the judge should have dissolved it given the doubtful legal right of the plaintiffs and the questionable validity of the injunction bond.