GR L L 40511; (July 1975) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-40511 July 25, 1975
MARA, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. JUSTINIANO C. ESTRELLA, City Judge of Quezon City, Branch V, and JOSE DE LEON, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Mara, Inc., the registered owner of four lots in Quezon City, filed a complaint for forcible entry against respondent Jose de Leon on May 4, 1973. It alleged De Leon, through force and strategy, occupied the lots in April 1973. Four days later, Mara, Inc. moved for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to be restored to possession. De Leon opposed, challenging the validity of Mara, Inc.’s titles and claiming the lots were covered by a different certificate of title. The City Judge, respondent Justiniano C. Estrella, initially deferred resolution of the injunction motion.
After the Supreme Court’s ruling in related cases upheld the validity of the title from which Mara, Inc.’s titles were derived, Judge Estrella granted the writ on November 20, 1974, upon Mara, Inc.’s posting of a P10,000 bond. De Leon moved for reconsideration and, after the writ was issued in February 1975, moved for its dissolution, offering to file a counterbond. On April 1, 1975, Judge Estrella granted the motion to dissolve the injunction, conditioning it on De Leon filing a P10,000 surety bond.
ISSUE
Whether the City Court acted with grave abuse of discretion in dissolving the preliminary mandatory injunction issued in favor of the registered owner, Mara, Inc.
RULING
Yes, the City Court acted with grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic proceeds from the specific provision of Article 539 of the Civil Code, incorporated in the Rules of Court, which allows a possessor deprived through forcible entry to secure a preliminary mandatory injunction to be restored to possession. This remedy is urgent, with the court mandated to decide the motion within thirty days, to prevent prolonged deprivation of possession from a rightful owner. The Supreme Court emphasized that where the petitioner is the registered owner and the oppositor is a mere interloper without a clear possessory right, a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction is proper pendente lite.
In this case, Mara, Inc. held incontestable Torrens titles, a fact bolstered by a prior Supreme Court decision validating the root title. De Leon’s claim, based on a different title, did not establish an indubitable right. Furthermore, the dissolution of the injunction was procedurally flawed. Judge Estrella allowed dissolution based on De Leon’s mere submission of a check, not the required surety bond, and failed to ensure service of a bond copy to the opposing party as required by the rules, depriving Mara, Inc. of the chance to object. This, coupled with the substantive weakness of De Leon’s claim, rendered the dissolution order capricious. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, set aside the dissolution order, and reinstated the injunction.