REPUBLIC V.

CORTEZ
G.R. NO 197472, SEPTERMBER 7, 2015 J. DEL CASTILLO

FACTS:
Rev. Claudio R. Cortez, Sr., a missionary, claims that since 1962, he has been in peaceful
possession of about 50 hectares of land located in the western portion of Palaui Island in
Sta. Ana, Cagayan, together with the Aetas.

In 1967, Proclamation No. 201 was issued reserving for military purposes a parcel of the
public domain situated in Palaui Island. More than two decades later, Proclamation No.
447 was issued declaring Palaui Island and the surrounding waters situated in the
Municipality of Sta. Ana, Cagayan as marine reserve. Again subject to any private rights,
the entire Palaui Island was reserved as a marine protected area.

Rev. Cortez contends that upon orders of Rogelio Biñas, Commanding officer of the
Philippine naval command, his men, through the use of force and intimidation,
commanded them to vacate the area in Palaui Island. Thus, Rev. Cortez and his men were
constrained to leave the area. In view of these, Rev. Cortez filed the said Petition with the
RTC seeking preliminary mandatory injunction ordering Biñas to restore to him possession
and to not disturb the same, and further, for the said preliminary writ, if issued, to be
made permanent.

RTC rendered its Decision making the injunction final and permanent. In so ruling, the said
court made reference to the Indigenous Peoples’ Right Act (IPRA). The CA affirmed RTC.

ISSUE:
W/N Rev. Cortez is entitled to the final writ of mandatory injunction? No.

HELD:
"Two requisites must concur for injunction to issue: (1) there must be a right to be
protected and (2) the acts against which the injunction is to be directed are violative of
said right."35 Thus, it is necessary that the Court initially determine whether the right
asserted by Rev. Cortez indeed exists. As earlier stressed, it is necessary that such right
must have been established by him with absolute certainty.

Rev. Cortez argues that he is entitled to the injunctive writ based on the right of
possession (jus possesionis) by reason of his peaceful and continuous possession of the
subject area since 1962. He avers that as this right is protected by law, he cannot be
peremptorily dispossessed therefrom, or if already dispossessed, is entitled to be
restored in possession. Hence, the mandatory injunctive writ was correctly issued in his
favor.
In this case, there is no such proof showing that the subject portion of Palaui Island has
been declared alienable and disposable when Rev. Cortez started to occupy the same.
Hence, it must be considered as still inalienable public domain. His possession of the
subject area, even if the same be in the concept of an owner or no matter how long,
cannot produce any legal effect in his favor since the property cannot be lawfully
possessed in the first place.

In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that Rev. Cortez failed to conclusively establish
his claimed right over the subject portion of Palaui Island as would entitle him to the
issuance of a final injunction.

LUKANG V. PAGBILAO DEVT. CORP

G.R. No. 195374 March 10, 2014 J. MENDOZA

FACTS:
This case involved several properties of Arsenio Lukang who died and left legitimate and
illegitimate heirs (IHs). Many transactions transpired until Pagbilao Development
Corporation (PDC) purchased from Simeon, Mercedes and Rosalina (IHs) the six (6)
properties while two civil cases were still pending between the heirs of Arsenio.
Annotations were carried over into PDC’s title on the said properties.

When other heirs learned of the sale of the subject properties to PDC, they filed a motion
to require Simeon and Rosalina to explain why they sold the properties without
permission from the RTC. On April 23, 2008, they also filed an application for a writ of
preliminary injunction with ex-parte prayer for temporary restraining order (TRO). They
alleged that they were in actual and physical possession of the subject properties; and
that PDC entered into the said premises, destroyed some structures therein and started
to construct improvements on the properties without their consent.

RTC granted the issuance of a TRO and granted the application for writ of preliminary
injunction by which it restrained PDC from wresting possession of the subject properties
and ordering the movant, Pedro, to file a bond which the latter did and posted a 1 million
peso bond.

CA reversed RTC. The CA explained that Pedro’s right over the said properties was not
clear as it was contingent on the outcome or result of the cases pending before the RTC;
that it was not a present right but a contingent or future right which was not covered by
injunction; and that there was no paramount necessity because there would be no great
and irreparable injury. Moreover, PDC, as the registered owner of the said properties, had
the right to enjoy the same as provided under Articles 428 and 429 of the Civil Code.

ISSUE:
W/N the heirs are entitled to the writ of preliminary injunction – Yes.

HELD:
A writ of preliminary injunction may be issued upon the concurrence of the following
essential requisites, to wit: (a) the invasion of right sought to be protected is material and
substantial; (b) the right of the complainant is clear and unmistakable; and (c) there is an
urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. While a clear
showing of the right is necessary, its existence need not be conclusively established.
Hence, to be entitled to the writ, it is sufficient that the complainant shows that he has
an ostensible right to the final relief prayed for in his complaint.

In the present case, the Court finds the RTC grant of injunction to be in order.
During the hearing, Pedro and the other heirs were able to convince the RTC that they
had a right over the properties which should be protected while being litigated.
Convinced, the RTC made a preliminary determination that their right should be
protected by a writ of preliminary injunction. Their claimed ownership and actual
possession were then being violated by PDC which had started entering the premises and
preparing the property for the construction of a power plant for liquefied natural gas.
Unless legally stopped, such act would indeed cause irreparable damage to the petitioner
and other claimants. As claimed co-owners, the petitioner and the other heirs have the
right to remain in possession of the subject properties pendente lite. The legal or practical
remedy of PDC, who gambled its lot in purchasing the properties despite the annotations,
is to await the final outcome of the cases or to amicably settle its problems with all the
co-owners, co-heirs or claimants.

HEIRS OF YU V. CA
G.R. No. 182371 September 4, 2013 J. PERALTA

FACTS:
On May 24, 1972, Sps. Yu filed Civil Case No. 1291 against John Z. Sycip for the declaration
of nullity of documents and recovery of possession of real property with a prayer for a
writ of preliminary mandatory injunction (WPMI) and damages. The trial court initially
dismissed the case on the ground of prescription, but the CA set aside the order of
dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. After trial, wherein the court
adopted the oral and documentary evidence presented in Civil Case No. 969, the CFI
Cotabato ruled in favor of Sps. Yu and ordered Sycip to deliver the TCT back to the Sps.

During the pendency of Civil Case No. 1291, squatters entered the subject lot.
Consequently, when a writ of execution and an order of demolition were issued by the
trial court, a group of squatters (YUHAI) filed a complaint for injunction with damages and
prayer for writ of preliminary injunction (WPI) or temporary restraining order (TRO). In
time, the trial court ruled in favor of petitioners. The CA affirmed the decision.
ISSUE:
W/N the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction is proper – NO.

HELD:
A preliminary mandatory injunction should only be granted "in cases of extreme urgency;
where the right is very clear; where considerations of relative inconvenience bear strongly
in complainant's favor; where there is a willful and unlawful invasion of plaintiff's right
against his protest and remonstrance, the injury being a continuing one; and where the
effect of the mandatory injunction is rather to re-establish and maintain a pre-existing
continuing relation between the parties, recently and arbitrarily interrupted by the
defendant, than to establish a new relation."

In this case, there is doubt on private respondents’ entitlement to a preliminary

mandatory injunction since the evidence presented before the respondent CA in support
thereof appears to be weak and inconclusive, and the alleged right sought to be protected
is vehemently disputed. The documentary evidence presented by private respondents
does not suffice to prove their ownership and possession of the contested lot.