[G.R. No. 144499. February 19, 2002]
FIRST GLOBAL REALTY #OR!ORATION, petitioner, #OR!ORATION, petitioner, AG%STIN, respondent .
AND DEELO!"ENT vs. #$RISTO!$ER SAN
DE#ISION !ANGANIBAN, J .& .&
A writ of preliminary injunction is issued pendente issued pendente lite to preser preserve ve the the status quo. To be entitled to one, the applicant must show a prima facie right to the relief demanded in the complaint. In the present case, the applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that, indeed, he has such right and that grave and irreparable injury would befall him and his family, unless the injunctive relief is granted while the main case pends in the trial court. S'a'e(e)' o* '+e #ae Before us is a Petition for eview on Certiorar i i under ule $% of the ules of &our &ourt, t, cha challe llengin ging the the April pril '(, '(, '))) *eci *ecisi sion on of the &ourt of Appeals &A&A- in &A/ &A/ 0P 1o. 1o. $2) $2)(+ and the the Augus gust "), '))) &A esolution denying reconsideration. The dispositive portion of the assailed *ecision reads as follows3 !"#
!'#
!+#
!$#
WHEREFORE, the order dated May 21, 1998 and June 26, 1998 of the court a quo are SET AS!E and the "et#t#on #$ here%y &RA'TE!( F&R!) #$ here%y en*o#ned fro+ ta#n- "o$$e$$#on of the $u%*ect "ro"erty unt#. )#/#. )a$e 'o( 902608, h#ch #$ "end#n- %efore the court a quo quo ha$ %een heard and f#na..y re$o./ed( re$o./ed( !%#
T+e Fa-' The undisputed facts of the case are summari4ed by the &ourt of Appeals in this wise3 The $u%*ect +atter of the #n$tant contro/er$y #$ a "arce. of .and, #nc.ud#n- the hou$e %u#.t thereon, .ocated at 'o( 3491 Honda St(, 5o( #na-a#$ahan, #na-a#$ahan, Maat# )#ty 7$u%*ect
"ro"erty( The $u%*ect "ro"erty a$ "re/#ou$.y co/ered %y T)T 'o( 1823:, dated January 20, 1960, h#ch a$ #$$ued #n the na+e of ;here#n re$"ondent$< +other, =#.#an Sa.e$San A-u$t#n( ;Re$"ondent<, to-ether #th h#$ "arent$, %rother$ and $#$ter$ ha/e %een #n "o$$e$$#on of the $u%*ect "ro"erty $#nce 1960 u" to the "re$ent(
555 555 555 The conf.#ct .ead#n- to the #n$tant "et#t#on %e-an hen the $u%*ect "ro"erty a$ $o.d to $"ou$e$ Enr#que and An-e.#na )a+acho 7$"ou$e$ )a+acho #n 1994 for the a+ount of 2(: +#..#on "e$o$, net of ca"#ta. -a#n$ ta>, docu+entary $ta+" ta>, tran$fer ta>e$ and the re+a#n#n- %a.ance of the "et#t#oner$ .oan #th !5( The record$ $ho that $"ou$e$ )a+acho $ucceeded #n con/#nc#n- "et#t#oner to acce"t a "art#a. "ay+ent of 1,( "e$o$ u"on the e>ecut#on of a deed of a%$o.ute $a.e #n the#r fa/or o/er the $u%*ect "ro"erty( The %a.ance of 2(4 +#..#on "e$o$ ou.d %e "a#d once the t#t.e o/er the $a+e a$ tran$ferred #n the na+e of $"ou$e$ )a+acho( The .atter a-ree+ent ca+e a%out %ecau$e $"ou$e$ )a+acho ou.d u$e the $u%*ect "ro"erty to ra#$e the a+ount of 2(4 +#..#on "e$o$, that #$ to $ay, they ou.d $ecure a .oan fro+ a %an or f#nanc#a. #n$t#tut#on #th the $u%*ect "ro"erty a$ co..atera.( On May 24, 1994, !5 re.ea$ed the $u%*ect "ro"erty to "et#t#oner u"on fu.. "ay+ent of the .atter$ out$tand#n- .oan( Thereafter, ;re$"ondent< e>ecuted a deed of $a.e #n fa/or of $"ou$e$ )a+acho, ho #n turn "a#d re$"ondent< the a+ount of 1,( "e$o$( On May 26, 1994, T)T 'o( 194868 a$ #$$ued #n the na+e $"ou$e$ )a+acho( t a""eared that F#r$t &.o%a. Rea.ty !e/e.o"+ent )or"orat#on 7F&R!), ;here#n "et#t#oner<, -ranted $"ou$e$ )a+acho$ .oan a"".#cat#on #th the $u%*ect "ro"erty a$ co..atera., #n the a+ount of 1(19 +#..#on( Hoe/er, de$"#te rece#"t of the .oan and "et#t#oner$ de+and to "ay the %a.ance of the "urcha$e "r#ce of the $u%*ect "ro"erty, $"ou$e$ )a+acho d#d not "ay the $a+e( Sen$#n- that ;re$"ondent$< de+and to "ay fe.. on deaf ear$, he f#.ed a cr#+#na. co+".a#nt for e$tafa a-a#n$t $"ou$e$ )a+acho( ?nfortunate.y, the ca$e d#d not "ro$"er %ecau$e the $"ou$e$ )a+acho cou.d not %e .ocated for the "ro"er $er/#ce of the arrant of arre$t( n the en$u#n- "er#od, ;re$"ondent< d#$co/ered that F&R!) f#.ed a $"ec#a. c#/#. act#on for the forec.o$ure of the $u%*ect "ro"erty #na$+uch a$ $"ou$e$ )a+acho defau.ted #n
the "ay+ent of the#r .oan o%.#-at#on( The ca$e a$ a$$#-ned to the Re-#ona. Tr#a. )ourt, 5ranch 143, Maat# )#ty 75ranch 143, and doceted a$ )#/#. )a$e 'o( 9:690( On June 28, 1996, 5ranch 143 rendered a dec#$#on order#n- the forec.o$ure of the $u%*ect "ro"erty and the $u%$equent $a.e thereof at "u%.#c auct#on( S"ou$e$ )a+acho d#d not f#.e a +ot#on for recon$#derat#on of the $a#d dec#$#on( )on$equent.y, F&R!) f#.ed a +ot#on for e>ecut#on h#ch a$ -ranted on Fe%ruary 0, 1990( The $a.e of the $u%*ect "ro"erty at "u%.#c auct#on a$, ne/erthe.e$$, thru$t a$#de #n /#e of the dacion en pago h#ch $"ou$e$ )a+acho e>ecuted #n fa/or of F&R!)( On A"r#. 29, 1990, the dacion en pagoa$ re-#$tered %efore the Re-#$ter of !eed$ of Maat# )#ty, h#ch "a/ed the ay for the #$$uance of T)T 'o( 29: #n the na+e of F&R!)( Accord#n-.y, on Se"te+%er 8, 1990, F&R!) de+anded renta.$ fro+ ;re$"ondent<, $"ec#f#ca..y ;fro+< h#$ +other, for the .atter$ u$e of the $u%*ect "ro"erty( When F&R!)$ de+and a$ unheeded %y ;re$"ondent<, #t f#.ed a +ot#on for #$$uance of a r#t of "o$$e$$#on %efore Branch 143. A""arent.y, on 'o/e+%er 2, 1990, ;re$"ondent< f#.ed a +ot#on for #nter/ent#on %efore Branch 143, here#n he a$ed for the re$c#$$#on of the deed of a%$o.ute $a.e@+ort-a-e, dacion en pago and cance..at#on of F&R!)$ t#t.e o/er the $u%*ect "ro"erty( Hoe/er, f#nd#n- the +ot#on for #nter/ent#on to %e a fut#.e underta#n-, ;re$"ondent< f#.ed a $e"arate co+".a#nt for re$c#$$#on of the deed of a%$o.ute $a.e, annu.+ent of the dacion en pago and cance..at#on of t#t.e and #$$uance of a ne t#t.e #th "rayer for the #$$uance of a te+"orary re$tra#n#n- order and@or a r#t of #n*unct#on a-a#n$t F&R!), $ee#n- to en*o#n the .atter fro+ ta#n- "o$$e$$#on of the $u%*ect "ro"erty( The ca$e a$ raff.ed to 5ranch 141 7court a quo, here "u%.#c re$"ondent #$ the "re$#d#n- *ud-e, and doceted a$ )#/#. )a$e 'o( 902603( On May 21, 1998, the court a quo #$$ued an order deny#n- ;re$"ondent$< "rayer for #$$uance of a r#t of "re.#+#nary #n*unct#on( et#t#oner f#.ed a +ot#on for recon$#derat#on %ut ;#t< a$ den#ed #n an order dated June 26, 1998 for .ac of +er#t(
Orer o* '+e Tr/a #our'
!6#
In its 7rder dated 9ay '", "22(, the T& denied the application of respondent for a preliminary injunction to prevent petitioner from evicting him from the subject property. The trial court held that under the facts alleged in the &omplaint, respondent had sold the property to the &amacho spouses for P',%)),))). The spouses initially gave him P")),))), with the balance to be paid after they would have secured a loan using the property as collateral. The lower court added that cause of action of respondent was to demand payment of the balance from the &amachos. The formers 9otion for econsideration of the 7rder was denied by the T& in its :une '6, "22( 7rder. !8#
Ru/) o* '+e #our' o* Aea The &ourt of Appeals reversed the T& and granted the injunctive relief prayed for by respondent. It held that petitioner should not be given possession of the property pendente lite, because it ;new of the agreement between respondent and the &amachos. 9oreover, the fact that the property remained in the possession of respondents mother at the time the couple sold it to petitioner should have warned it of a defect in its claims. Aggrieved by the &A *ecision, petitioner lodged the present recourse.
!(#
Iue In its 9emorandum, petitioner raises the following issues for our consideration3 1( Whether or not the factua. f#nd#n-$ of the Honora%.e )ourt of A""ea.$ u"on h#ch #t #$$ued the A"r#. 28, 2 !ec#$#on and the Au-u$t 1, 2 Re$o.ut#on are de/o#d of $u""ort %y the e/#dence or the $a+e are %a$ed on a +#$a""rehen$#on of fact$ and 2( Whether or not "et#t#oner #$ a "urcha$er #n -ood fa#th and for /a.ue hence, ent#t.ed to the "o$$e$$#on of the .#t#-ated "ro"erty( !2#
The foregoing points really boil down to the gut issue of whether respondent is entitled to the possession of the property while the main case for rescission is pending in the T&.
T+e #our' Ru/) The Petition has no merit. !r/)-/a Iue& Possession !e)e)'e L/'e Petitioner see;s to dispossess respondent of the subject property on the strength of a dacion en pago e5ecuted in its favor by the &amacho spouses who, in turn, had purportedly bought it from herein respondent. espondent, on the other hand, claims that petitioner failed to show a clear right to possess it. To dispossess him pendente lite would be clearly unjust.
A preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy that a party may resort to in order to preserve and protect certain rights and interests during the pendency of an action. It is issued to preserve the status quo ante the last
actual, peaceful, and uncontested status that preceded the actual controversy. In Saulog v. CA, the 0upreme &ourt ruled thus3 !")#
A "re.#+#nary #n*unct#on #$ an order -ranted at any $ta-e of an act#on "r#or to f#na. *ud-+ent, requ#r#n- a "er$on to refra#n fro+ a "art#cu.ar act( t +ay %e -ranted at any t#+e after the co++ence+ent of the act#on and %efore f#na. *ud-+ent, hen #t #$ e$ta%.#$hed that the ".a#nt#ff #$ ent#t.ed to the re.#ef de+anded, and the ho.e or "art of $uch re.#ef con$#$t$ #n re$tra#n#n- the co++#$$#on or cont#nuance of the act$ co+".a#ned of, or #n the "erfor+ance of an act or act$, e#ther for a .#+#ted "er#od or "er"etua..y that the co++#$$#on or cont#nuance of $o+e act co+".a#ned of dur#n- the .#t#-at#on or the non"erfor+ance thereof ou.d "ro%a%.y or #n*u$t#ce to the ".a#nt#ff or that the defendant #$ do#n-, threaten$, or #$ a%out to do, or #$ "rocur#n- or $uffer#n- to %e done, $o+e act "ro%a%.y #n /#o.at#on of the ".a#nt#ffC$ r#-ht$ re$"ect#nthe $u%*ect of the act#on, and tend#n- to render the *ud-+ent #neffectua.( A "re.#+#nary #n*unct#on, a$ the ter+ #t$e.f $u--e$t$, #$ +ere.y te+"orary, $u%*ect to the f#na. d#$"o$#t#on of the "r#nc#"a. act#on and #t$ "ur"o$e #$ to "re$er/e the $tatu$ quo of the th#n-$ $u%*ect of the act#on and@or the re.at#on %eteen the "art#e$, #n order to "rotect the r#-ht of the ".a#nt#ff re$"ect#n- the $u%*ect of the act#on dur#n- the "endency of the $u#t( Other#$e or #f no "re.#+#nary #n*unct#on ere #$$ued, the defendant +ay, %efore f#na. *ud-+ent, do or cont#nue the do#n- of the act h#ch the ".a#nt#ff a$$ the court to re$tra#n, and thu$ +ae #neffectua. the f#na. *ud-+ent rendered afterard$ -rant#n- the re.#ef $ou-ht %y the ".a#nt#ff( t$ #$$uance re$t$ ent#re.y #th#n the d#$cret#on of the court ta#n- co-n#Dance of the ca$e and #$ -enera..y not #nterfered #th e>ce"t #n ca$e$ of +an#fe$t a%u$e( !""#
=i;ewise, in Paramount Insurance v. CA, this &ourt held that !i#njunction is an e5traordinary remedy calculated to preserve the status quo of things and to prevent actual or threatened acts violative of the rules of equity and good conscience as would consequently afford an injured party a cause of action resulting from the failure of the law to provide for an adequate or complete relief 5 5 5. Its sole purpose is not to correct a wrong of the past, in the sense of redress for injury already sustained, but to prevent further injury. !"'#
The purpose of a preliminary injunction, then, is to prevent threatened or continuous irremediable injury to some of the parties before their claims can be thoroughly studied and adjudicated. Its sole aim is to preserve the status
quo until the merits of the case can be heard fully. Thus, it will be issued only upon a showing of a clear and unmista;able right that is violated. 9oreover, an urgent and permanent necessity for its issuance must be shown by the applicant. !"+#
!"$#
In the present case, the status quo that is sought to be preserved is the possession of the property by respondent and his right to use it as his dwelling, pending determination of whether or not he had indeed sold it to the &amachos and, consequently, whether the latters transfer of its ownership to petitioner via dacion en pago should be upheld. Prima Facie Right to Possess espondents &omplaint in the trial court see;s the following3 the rescission of the *eed of Absolute 0ale between himself and the &amacho spouses, the annulment of the dacion en pago e5ecuted by the latter in favor of petitioner, and the cancellation of petitioners certificate of title to it as well as the issuance of a new one in favor of respondent. The factual findings of both the trial and the appellate courts show that respondent intended to sell the subject property to the &amacho spouses for the sum of P',%)),))). The couple initially paid P")),))), with the agreement that the balance would be paid when they would have secured a loan using the subject property as collateral. To facilitate their procurement of a loan, the title to the property was transferred to them. >sing the subject property as collateral, the &amachos were able to obtain a loan of P","2),))) from petitioner. >pon the formers failure to pay the loan, the latter sought to foreclose the mortgage over it. ?owever, before the property could be foreclosed, petitioner and the couple allegedly agreed on a dacion en pago, in which the latter ceded ownership of the property in favor of the former in consideration of the payment of the loan. espondent contends that when petitioner conducted an onsite investigation of the property in connection with the couples application for a loan, the latter learned that the former was living in the subject premises and was thus in
actual possession of it. The &A found, in fact, that petitioner was aware that respondent the previous owner remained an unpaid seller. 9oreover, respondent argues that the dacion en pago is riddled with a number of irregularities. ?e maintains that the &amachos e5ecuted it way bac; in "22$ when they were still applying for a loan, not immediately prior to the supposed foreclosure in "228. At the same time, they also e5ecuted a promissory note and mortgage for the same amount. As respondent points out, a dacion en pago that cedes property in favor of the creditor is not compatible with a mortgage wherein property is foreclosed in case of failure to pay the principal loan. Indeed, the records show that the dacion en pago signed in "22$ was registered only in "228. It was e5ecuted in lieu of the foreclosure of the property when the &amachos failed to pay their loan obligations. The amount stated in the dacion as consideration was the P","2),))) loan that they had obtained from petitioner. It is therefore strange that the couple would buy a parcel of land for P',%)),))), obtain a loan to help finance payment for the same, and finally cede the same property for an amount much lower than that for which they purchased it. 9oreover, by e5ecuting a dacion, the sellers effectively waived the redemption period normally given a mortgagor. In sum, we hold that respondent was able to show a prima facie right to the relief demanded in his &omplaint. The &amachos nonpayment of the purchase price agreed upon and the irregularities surrounding the dacion en pago are serious enough to allow him to possess the property pendente lite. Grave Injustice in a Transfer of Possession In addition, respondent has shown that to allow petitioner to ta;e immediate possession of the property would result in grave injustice. As we have stated above, the ownership of the property, the validity of the sale between respondent and the &amachos and the legitimacy of the dacion en pago e5ecuted by the latter in favor of petitioner are still subject to determination in the court below. @urthermore, there is no question that
respondent has been in possession of the premises during all this time prior to and during the institution of the &omplaint. ?e and his family have long owned, possessed and occupied it as their family home since "268. To dispossess him of it now would definitely alter the status quo to their detriment. Ineffectual Judgment By selling their family home to the &amachos for P',%)),))), the respondent hoped to improve the plight of his family. By a strange turn of events, he will now find himself homeless with only the sum of P")),))) to purchase a new dwelling for himself and his relatives. Indeed, justice and equity dictate that he should remain in possession of the property pendente lite. 3$EREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and *ecision AFFIRMED. &osts against petitioner.
the
assailed
SO ORDERED. Melo, C!airman", #itug, Sandoval$%utierre&, and Carpio, ''., concur .
