A clear legal right means one clearly founded in or granted by law or is enforceable as

a matter of law (Australian Professional Realty, Inc. v. Municipality of Padre Garcia,

Batangas Province, 668 SCRA 253, 262, March 14, 2012). In other words, for the writ to
issue, the right sought to be protected must be a present right, a legal right which
must be shown to be clear and positive. Accordingly, this means that the applicants
praying for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction must show that they have
an ostensible right to the final relief prayed for in their complaint(Juana Complex I
Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Fil-Estate Land, Inc., 667 SCRA 440, 452, March 5,
2012).
The writ is issued upon the satisfaction of two requisites, namely: (1) the existence of
a right to be protected; and (2) acts which are violative of said right. In the absence of
a clear legal right, the issuance of the injunctive right, the issuance of the injunctive
relief constitutes grave abuse of discretion. Injunction is not designed to protect
contingent or future rights. Where the complainants right is doubtful or disputed,
injunction is not proper. The possibility of irreparable damage without proof of actual
existing right is not a ground for an injunction (Manila International Airport Authority v.
Rivera Village Lessee Homeowners Association Incorporated, 471 SCRA 358, 379-380;
See also China Banking Corporation v. Sps. Ciriaco, G.R. No. 170038, July 11,2012).