G.R. Nos. L-61915-16 July 29, 1985
JOSE I. HERNANDEZ and MARTA T. HERNANDEZ, petitioners, vs. HON. ROMEO D. MAGAT, as Presiding Judge of Branch VII, Court of First Instance of Alaminos, Pangasinan, and SPOUSES FEDERICO DE GUZMAN and CANDIDA LEGASPI DE GUZMAN, respondents.

FACTS

The private respondents, the De Guzman spouses, leased a fishpond to petitioner Jose Hernandez for a term ending in 1987, as evidenced by a 1972 contract and subsequent supplemental agreements. In April 1982, the lessors threatened to eject the Hernandez spouses, prompting the latter to file a complaint for injunction and damages (Civil Case No. A-1378) to maintain their possession. The De Guzman spouses, in their answer, claimed that petitioner Marta Hernandez had executed a separate agreement in 1974, giving them an option to repurchase the leasehold for P100,000.00 by 1982, failing which the lease would extend to 1992. They alleged they tendered the payment, which was refused, and filed their own suit (Civil Case No. A-1379) to recover possession and compel consignation.
Petitioner Marta Hernandez specifically denied under oath the genuineness of the 1974 agreement. The petitioners contended that Jose Hernandez was the sole lessee and that his wife had no authority to alter the lease contract. Nevertheless, the respondent judge, consolidating the hearings for preliminary injunctions in both cases, issued an order granting the De Guzman spouses’ motions for consignation and for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, effectively ousting the Hernandez spouses from the fishpond. The petitioners then filed the instant petition.

ISSUE

The main issues are: (1) whether a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction was properly issued under the circumstances, and (2) whether Marta Hernandez, without her husband’s authority, could validly execute an agreement altering or terminating the lease contract where Jose Hernandez was the sole lessee.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the respondent judge’s orders. On the first issue, the Court ruled that the issuance of the preliminary mandatory injunction constituted grave abuse of discretion. A writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, which dispossesses one party and vests possession in another, is an extraordinary remedy only justified when the applicant’s right is clear and unquestionable. Here, the respondents’ right was far from clear, being vigorously disputed based on the alleged 1974 agreement, the genuineness of which was specifically denied under oath. Injunction is meant to protect, not to assist, a usurpation; it cannot be used to transfer possession where title or right of possession is clouded with doubt.
On the second issue, the Court held that even assuming the 1974 agreement was genuine, it could not bind Jose Hernandez or terminate the lease. The original and supplemental contracts identified Jose Hernandez as the sole lessee. He was not a party to the 1974 agreement. The respondents’ claim that they dealt with Marta Hernandez because Jose was busy is no justification for ignoring the actual contracting party. Therefore, the agreement, regardless of its authenticity, was ineffective to alter the lease term or justify the lessors’ premature reclamation of the property. Consequently, the Court made permanent its earlier order restoring possession to the petitioners and dismissed both civil cases below.