Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 195374
March 10, 2014
PEDRO LUKANG, Petitioner, vs. PAG!LAO DE"ELOPMENT CORPORAT!ON a#$ EDUARDO T. RODR!GUE%, Respondents.
D!ISION MENDO%A, J.:
This petition for revie" under Rule #$ of the Rules of !ourt assails the October %&, %'&' Decision& Decision& and the (anuar) &*, %'&& Resolution% Resolution% of the !ourt of +ppeals !+- in !+/.R. SP No. &'00'*, "hich nullified and set aside the Ma) &1, %''0 Order1 Order 1 of the Re2ional Trial !ourt RT!(. 3ranch $1, 4ucena !it), 2rantin2 the petitioner5s application for a "rit of preli6inar) in7unction. The 8acts9 The patriarch of the fa6il), +rsenio 4u:an2 +rsenio-, and Mercedes Dee Mercedes- lived as husband and "ife in !ala6ba, 4a2una, fro6 &*%% to &*1# and be2ot three 1- children, na6el), Do6in2o, Rosalina and Ol)6pia. In &*1$, he started cohabitin2 "ith 4eoncia Martine; 4eoncia-, "ith "ho6 he had ten &'- children, na6el), lpidio, Socorro, Manuel, Pedro, Teresita, Si6eon, u2enio, Hilaria, !oncepcion, and !arlos. Durin2 their cohabitation in 4ucena,
a- Transfer !ertificate of Title T!T- Nos. T##$#># "ith an area of %$>,*?> s=uare 6eters@ b- T!T No. T##$#0$ "ith an area of #',''' s=uare 6eters@ c- T!T No. T##$#*? "ith an area of $.''>0 hectares@ and d- T!T No. T##$$'> consistin2 of $.'0'1 hectares. The said properties "ere then re2istered in the na6e of A+RSNIO 4BC+N/, 6arried to Mercedes Dee, &% share and 4eoncia Martine;, sin2le, &% share.A +rsenio and 4eoncia later ac=uired four #- 6ore parcels of land covered b) T!T No. T&'1'*#, T!T No. T &'%$, T!T No. T &%$1#*, and T!T No. T&%$1#0. It "as alle2edl) a2reed that the said properties should be re2istered in the na6e of Si6eon, one of their children, in trust for the other heirs and should be o"ned in co66on b) their fa6il). Ehen +rsenio died in &*>?, his &1 children and Mercedes, eFecuted the Ftra7udicial Settle6ent of state,0 in "hich the) a2reed to ad7udicate and transfer a6on2 the6selves the ri2hts, interest and o"nership of the four #- parcels of land covered b) T!T Nos. T##$#>, T##$#0, T##$#*, and T##$$'. There "as, ho"ever, no a2ree6ent to partition the properties as the) re6ained co66on to all the heirs. Gears later, after the eFecution of the Ftra7udicial Settle6ent of state, Mercedes, to2ether "ith her three 1- children, Rosalina, Do6in2o, and Ol)6pia, eFecuted another docu6ent, deno6inated as Pa2babaha2in2 4abas sa Hu:u6an Na Ma) Pa2tali:od sa Carapatan,* dated Dece6ber &*, &*0>, "herein the parties declared that the) "ere the onl) heirs of +rsenio and partitioned the half portion of the four #- parcels of land covered b) T!T Nos. T##$#>, T##$#0, T##$#*, and T##$$' a6on2 the6selves, "ith Mercedes "aivin2 her supposed share in favor of her three 1- children.
In &*00, Si6eon, alle2in2 that the certificates of title of the properties covered b) T!T Nos. T&'1'*#, T&'%$, T&%$1#*, and T&%$1#0 "ere lost, filed a petition for the issuance of the o"ners duplicate cop) before the RT!, 3ranch $>, 4ucena !it). +s a result, ne" o"ners duplicate copies of the alle2edl) lost titles "ere issued in his favor. Thereafter, Si6eon, in a deed of donation, transferred the said properties in favor of his children, 3enedict, Heile and Madeleine. !onse=uentl), T!T Nos. T&'1'*#, T&%$1#0 and T&%$1#* "ere cancelled, and T!T No. T%#&'1# "as issued in the na6e of 3enedict@ T!T No. %#&'1$ in the na6e of Heile@ and T!T No. %#&'1? in the na6e of Madeleine. &' 8urther6ore, Si6eon purportedl) eFecuted the 3ilihan2 4a6pasan and Pa2bibilihan2 4ubusan, "here he sold the land covered b) T!T No. &'%$ in favor of Mercedes, Rosalina, 4eoncia, and lpidio. In the 6eanti6e, on 8ebruar) &$, &*0*, Mercedes, throu2h Rosalinda, filed the Petition for the Issuance of the O"ners Duplicate of T!T Nos. T##$#>, T##$#0, T##$#* and T##$$'&& before the RT!, 3ranch $0, 4ucena !it). The RT!, in its Order,&% dated March %>, &*0*, 2ranted the petition and ne" titles "ere issued in favor of Mercedes. Bn:no"n to 4eoncia, Rosalina caused the se2re2ation of the onehalf portion of the said properties in her 4eoncias- favor and the division of the re6ainin2 half a6on2 her and her siblin2s, Do6in2o and Ol)6pia. Hence, T!T Nos. T ##$#>, T##$#0, T##$#*, and T##$$' "ere cancelled and ne" titles "ere issued9 T!T Nos. T%#>%&*,&1 T%#>%%&, T %#>%%1,&$ and T%#>%%$&? in the na6es of Rosalina, Do6in2o and Ol)6pia, "hile T!T Nos. T%#>%%',&> T%#>%%%,&0 T %#>%%#,&* and T%#>%%?%' "ere re2istered in the na6e of 4eoncia. On Septe6ber %?, &**', 4eoncia and her children, clai6in2 that the titles of T!T Nos. T##$#>, T##$#0, T##$#*, and T##$$' "ere not lost but in her 4eoncias- possession, filed a co6plaint%& for annul6ent of eFtra7udicial partition, affidavit of se2re2ation and annul6ent of the ne" certificates of title, "hich "as doc:eted as !ivil !ase No. *'&%#. The said case "as
consolidated "ith !ivil !ase No. 0*>*, a case for recover) of four #- o"ners duplicate cop) of T!Ts filed b) Si6eon a2ainst his brother Pedro. The cases "ere raffled to RT!, 3ranch $1, 4ucena !it). Subse=uentl), 4eoncia, throu2h Pedro, re2istered her adverse clai6 on 8ebruar) 1, &*0* on T!T Nos. T%#&'1#, T%#%#%*, T!T No. T%#&'1?, T%#&'1$, and T%#%#%> as ntr) No. $1'$#$. He further caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on T!T No. T%#>%%& as ntr) No. $$?&*% on October &, &**', and on T!T Nos. T%#&'1#, T%#%#%*, T!T No. T%#&'1?, T%#&'1$, and T%#%#%> as ntr) No. $10*&? on Nove6ber ?, &*0*. In &**1, "hile !ivil !ase No. 0*>* and !ivil !ase No. *'&%# "ere still pendin2, respondent Pa2bilao Develop6ent !orporation PD!- purchased fro6 Si6eon, Mercedes and Rosalina the siF ?properties "hich "ere the sub7ect of the t"o cases. Thus, T!T Nos. T%#&'1#, T%#%#%*, T%#&'1?, T%#&'1$, T%#>%%&, and T %#%#%> "ere cancelled and ne" titles, T!T Nos. T%0%&'',%% T %0%&'&,%1 T%0%&'%,%# T%0%&'1,%$ T%0%&'#,%? and T %0%&'$%> "ere issued in favor of PD!. +ccordin2l), the annotations "ere carried over to PD!s titles. Ehen Pedro and the other heirs learned of the sale of the sub7ect properties to PD!, the) filed a 6otion to re=uire Si6eon and Rosalina to eFplain "h) the) sold the properties "ithout per6ission fro6 the RT!.%0 On +pril %1, %''0, the) also filed an application for a "rit of preli6inar) in7unction "ith eFparte pra)er for te6porar) restrainin2 order TRO-.%* The) alle2ed that the) "ere in actual and ph)sical possession of the sub7ect properties@ and that PD! entered into the said pre6ises, destro)ed so6e structures therein and started to construct i6prove6ents on the properties "ithout their consent. In its Order, dated +pril %1, %''0, the RT!1' 2ranted the issuance of the TRO effective for a period of t"ent) %'- da)s.
On Ma) &1, %''0, after due hearin2, the RT! issued the Order 1& 2rantin2 the application for "rit of preli6inar) in7unction b) "hich it restrained PD! fro6 "restin2 possession of the sub7ect properties and orderin2 the 6ovant, Pedro, to file a bond. PD! filed a 6otion for reconsideration but it "as denied in the RT! Order,1% dated March &0, %''*. On Ma) %*, %''*, Pedro posted a bond in the a6ount of One Million Pesos P&,''','''.'''-.11 PD! filed a petition for certiorari before the !+ assailin2 the issuance of the "rit of preli6inar) in7unction. The !+, in its Decision, dated October %&, %'&', 2ranted the petition and set aside the Ma) &1, %''0 and March &0, %''* Orders of the RT!. The !+ eFplained that Pedros ri2ht over the said properties "as not clear as it "as contin2ent on the outco6e or result of the cases pendin2 before the RT!@ that it "as not a present ri2ht but a contin2ent or future ri2ht "hich "as not covered b) in7unction@ and that there "as no para6ount necessit) because there "ould be no 2reat and irreparable in7ur). Moreover, PD!, as the re2istered o"ner of the said properties, had the ri2ht to en7o) the sa6e as provided under +rticles #%0 and #%* of the !ivil !ode. Pedro filed a 6otion for reconsideration but it "as denied in the !+ Resolution, dated (anuar) &*, %'&&. Hence, this petition, anchored on the follo"in2 ISSBS I TH !OBRT O8 +PP+4S RRD IN !ONSISTNT4G TBRNIN/ +E+G 8ROM TH ISSB O8 RSPONDNT P+/3I4+OS ST+TBS +S + TR+NS8R PNDNT 4IT EHN TH+T IS TH M+IN ISSB IN TH 8IRST P4+! II
TH !OBRT O8 +PP+4S RRD IN RB4IN/ TH+T P+/3I4+O +S R/ISTRD OENR O8 TH SB3(!T PROPRTIS H+V TH RI/HT TO N(OG +ND !4BD OTHR PRSONS 8ROM TH N(OGMNT THRO8 III TH !OBRT O8 +PP+4S RRD IN RB4IN/ TH+T TH TRI+4 !OBRT PR(BD/D TH M+IN !+S +ND SHI8TD TH 3BRDN O8 PROO8 ON TH HIRS O8 SIMON 4BC+N/ IV TH !OBRT O8 +PP+4S RRD IN RB4IN/ TH+T NON ISSB+N! O8 TH IN(BN!TIV R4I8 IS NOT O8 P+R+MOBNT N!SSITG NOR EI44 IT !+BS /R+T +ND IRRP+R+34 IN(BRG TO PDRO 4BC+N/ V TH !OBRT O8 +PP+4S RRD IN HO4DIN/ TH+T TH TRI+4 !OBRT !OMMITTD /R+V +3BS O8 DIS!RTION IN NOT 8IIN/ TH 3OND. S)nthesi;ed, the issues boil do"n to the =uestion of "hether or not the RT! co66itted 2rave abuse of discretion "hen it issued the Ma) &1, %''0 Order 2rantin2 the "rit of preli6inar) in7unction. + "rit of preli6inar) in7unction is a provisional re6ed) "hich is ad7unct to a 6ain suit, as "ell as a preservative re6ed) issued to 6aintain the status =uo of the thin2s sub7ect of the action or the relations bet"een the parties durin2 the pendenc) of the suit.1# The purpose of in7unction is to prevent threatened or continuous irre6ediable in7ur) to the parties before their clai6s can be thorou2hl) studied and educated. Its sole ai6 is to preserve the status =uo until the 6erits of the case are full) heard.1$ Bnder Section 1, Rule $0 of the Rules of !ourt, an application for a "rit
of preli6inar) in7unction 6a) be 2ranted if the follo"in2 2rounds are established9 a- That the applicant is entitled to the relief de6anded, and the "hole or part of such relief consists in restrainin2 the co66ission or continuance of the act or acts co6plained of, or in re=uirin2 the perfor6ance of an act or acts, either for a li6ited period or perpetuall)@ b- That the co66ission, continuance or nonperfor6ance of the act or acts co6plained of durin2 the liti2ation "ould probabl) "or: in7ustice to the applicant@ or c- That a part), court, a2enc) or a person is doin2, threatenin2, or is atte6ptin2 to do, or is procurin2 or sufferin2 to be done, so6e act or acts probabl) in violation of the ri2hts of the applicant respectin2 the sub7ect of the action or proceedin2, and tendin2 to render the 7ud26ent ineffectual. Thus, a "rit of preli6inar) in7unction 6a) be issued upon the concurrence of the follo"in2 essential re=uisites, to "it9 a- the invasion of ri2ht sou2ht to be protected is 6aterial and substantial@ b- the ri2ht of the co6plainant is clear and un6ista:able@ and c- there is an ur2ent and para6ount necessit) for the "rit to prevent serious da6a2e.1? Ehile a clear sho"in2 of the ri2ht is necessar), its eFistence need not be conclusivel) established. Hence, to be entitled to the "rit, it is sufficient that the co6plainant sho"s that he has an ostensible ri2ht to the final relief pra)ed for in his co6plaint.1> The "ellentrenched rule is that the 2rant or denial of the "rit of preli6inar) in7unction rests upon the sound discretion of the court. The trial court is 2iven a "ide latitude in this re2ard. Thus, in the absence of a 6anifest abuse, such discretion 6ust not be interfered "ith.10 A/rave abuse of discretion in the issuance of "rits of preli6inar) in7unction i6plies a capricious and "hi6sical eFercise of 7ud26ent that is e=uivalent to lac: of 7urisdiction, or
"here the po"er is eFercised in an arbitrar) or despotic 6anner b) reason of passion, pre7udice or personal aversion a6ountin2 to an evasion of positive dut) or to a virtual refusal to perfor6 the dut) en7oined, or to act at all in conte6plation of la".A1* In the present case, the !ourt finds the RT! 2rant of in7unction to be in order.1âwphi1 The pertinent parts of its order read9 It is to be e6phasi;ed that the deeds of sale bet"een the vendors of the siF parcels of land and the Pa2bilao Develop6ent !orporation "ere eFecuted on (une &, &**1. The +ffidavit of +dverse !lai6 of 4eoncia Martine; Vda. De 4u:an2 and the Notice of 4is Pendens of Pedro 4u:an2 over the siF properties "ere all inscribed on 8ebruar) 1, &*0*. There is no =uestion, therefore, that "hen the Pa2bilao Develop6ent !orporation bou2ht the properties fro6 the vendors, it had full :no"led2e that there "ere =uestions involvin2 o"nership of the parcels of land it bou2ht. 4i:e"ise there is no =uestion that Pa2bilao Develop6ent !orporation did not ta:e an) step to have the annotation or encu6brance in each title cancelled. J6phases suppliedK The annotation of an adverse clai6 and notice of lis pendens over the sub7ect properties is a notice to third persons that there is a controvers) over the o"nership of the land and serves to preserve and protect the ri2ht of the adverse clai6ants durin2 the pendenc) of the controvers).#' The principle of filin2 a notice of lis pendens is based on public polic) and necessit), the purpose of "hich is to :eep the properties in liti2ation "ithin the po"er of the court until the liti2ation is ter6inated in order to prevent the defeat of the 7ud26ent b) subse=uent alienation@ and in order to bind a purchaser, bona fide or other"ise, to the 7ud26ent that the court "ould subse=uentl) pro6ul2ate. It serves as an announce6ent to the "hole "orld that a particular real propert) is in liti2ation and as a "arnin2 that those "ho ac=uire an interest
in the propert) do so at their o"n ris: the) 2a6ble on the result of the liti2ation over it.#& Here, it 6ust be noted that the annotations of adverse clai6 and lis pendens have been inscribed in the certificates of titles on the follo"in2 dates 8ebruar) 1, &*0*, Nove6ber ?, &*0* and October &, &**', 6ore than three 1- )ears before PD! bou2ht the sub7ect properties in &**1. It "ould have been different if the adverse clai6s and lis pendens "ere not annotated in the titles. Eith PD! havin2 been officiall) a"are of the6, there can be no 2rave abuse of discretion that can be attributed to the RT! for issuin2 the "rit of preli6inar) in7unction. There is no =uestion that "hen PD! purchased the propert), the petitioner and other intervenors "ere in actual possession of the propert) and their clai6s adverse to its predecessorsininterest "ere annotated in the ver) titles of the properties. In fact, these annotations "ere carried over to PD!s title. PD! cannot invo:e its bein2 the re2istered o"ner to dispossess the present possessors for, precisel), "hen it brou2ht the properties, it "as char2ed "ith the :no"led2e that the o"nership and sale of the sub7ect properties b) its predecessorsininterest have been =uestioned b) their co heirs. Inevitabl), PD! is dee6ed to have obtained the properties sub7ect to the outco6e of the liti2ation a6on2 the heirs of +rsenio. Durin2 the hearin2, Pedro and the other heirs "ere able to convince the RT! that the) had a ri2ht over the properties "hich should be protected "hile bein2 liti2ated. !onvinced, the RT! 6ade a preli6inar) deter6ination that their ri2ht should be protected b) a "rit of preli6inar) in7unction. Their clai6ed o"nership and actual possession "ere then bein2 violated b) PD! "hich had started enterin2 the pre6ises and preparin2 the propert) for the construction of a po"er plant for li=uefied natural 2as. Bnless le2all) stopped, such act "ould indeed cause irreparable da6a2e to the petitioner and other clai6ants. +s clai6ed coo"ners, the petitioner and the other heirs have the ri2ht to re6ain in possession of the sub7ect properties pendente lite. The le2al or practical re6ed) of PD!, "ho 2a6bled its lot in
purchasin2 the properties despite the annotations, is to a"ait the final outco6e of the cases or to a6icabl) settle its proble6s "ith all the coo"ners, coheirs or clai6ants. Eith re2ard to the issue of the in7unctive bond, the !ourt has ti6e and a2ain ruled that the postin2 of the bond is a condition sine =ua non before a "rit of preli6inar) in7unction 6a) issue.#% Its purpose is to secure the person en7oined a2ainst an) da6a2e that he 6a) sustain in case the court should finall) decide that the applicant "as not entitled thereto.#1 The rule, does not 6ean, ho"ever, that the in7unction 6a)be disre2arded since it beco6es effective onl) after the bond is actuall) filed in court.## In fact, in the case of !onsolidated Eor:ers Bnion v. !ourt of Industrial Relations,#$ the !ourt declared that it "as erroneous for the labor court not to re=uire the part) to file a bond. Get, the !ourt did not annul the "rit of in7unction but instead ordered the said court to deter6ine the appropriate a6ount of bond to be posted b) the part). In fine, it is erroneous for the !+ to rule that the RT! co66itted 2rave abuse of discretion si6pl) because it failed to fiF the a6ount of the bond. This error caused Ano substantial pre7udiceA that "ould "arrant the =uashal of the "rit of in7unction.#? +s a 6atter of fact, Pedro posted a bond in the a6ount of One Million Pesos P&,''','''.''-, the sufficienc) or insufficienc) of "hich "as never =uestioned b) PD! before the RT!. Hence, the !ourt "ill not discuss the sufficienc) of the bond not onl) because the issue "as not raised before the RT! but also it involves a =uestion of fact. EHR8OR, the petition is /R+NTD. The assailed October %&, %'&' Decision and the (anuar) &*, %'&& Resolution of the !ourt of +ppeals in !+/.R. SP No. &'00'* are hereb) RVRSD and ST +SID. The Ma) &1, %''0 Order of the Re2ional Trial !ourt, 3ranch $1, 4ucena !it), in !ivil !ase No. 0*>* and !ivil !ase No. *'&%# orderin2 the issuance of a Erit of Preli6inar) In7unction, is hereb) ordered RINST+TD.
SO ORDRD. &OSE CATRAL MENDO%A +ssociate (ustice