Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=45848:140228&amp;catid=1459&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 01:52:01+00:00

Document:
FRANCISCO MEDINA, MARIA MEDINA, RAYMUNDO MEDINA, ENRIQUE MEDINA, EDGARDO MEDINA, EVELYN MEDINA, ERNIE MEDINA, ELPIDIO MEDINA, EDWIN MEDINA, ELEONOR MEDINA, TEOFILO MEDINA, JR., EUGENE MEDINA, ELVIRA MEDINA, ANATALIO MEDINA, MARIO MEDINA, CORNELIO MEDINA, ERNESTO MEDINA, IGNACIO CONSTANTINO, SANTOS CONSTANTINO, HERMOGENES CONSTANTINO, FLORENCIO CONSTANTINO, VIRGINIA CONSTANTINO, MARCELO GEREMILLO, ROSILA GEREMILLO, ERNESTO GEREMILLO, MERCEDES GEREMILLO, MELENCIO GEREMILLO, BALBINO MEDINA, CRISANTA MEDINA, YOLANDA MEDINA, LYDIA MEDINA, RENATO MEDINA, EUFEMIA MEDINA, VIRGILIO MEDINA, SONIA MEDINA, LUZVIMINDA MEDINA, CRISPIN MEDINA, REMIGIO M. RODOLFO, MILAGROS M. RODOLFO, NIDA M. RODOLFO, BELEN M. RODOLFO, MANUEL M. RODOLFO, ALFREDO M. RODOLFO, SALLY AREVALO, ELMER AREVALO, CELSO AREVALO, JR., VINCENT AREVALO, NENE AREVALO, THE HEIRS OF NAZARIA CRUZ and SANTOS AREVALO, Petitioners, v. GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.
The propriety of the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City (Branch 276) in Civil Case No. 98-233 is the sole issue in this Petition for Review on Certiorari , assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals nullifying said writ.
Let therefore an injunction issue, enjoining and directing defendant GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, its security guards, agents, representatives, and all those claiming rights under it, from preventing plaintiffs and their caretaker Santos Arevalo, from entering and going out of the subject premises, and from preventing them to exercise their property rights, upon payment of a bond in the amount of P100,000.00.
IN THE (sic) LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Resolution of the Public Respondent Judge, dated January 18, 1999, in Civil Case No. 98-233 is hereby NULLIFIED.
As stated at the outset, the sole issue in this case is whether or not the trial court erred in granting petitioners' prayer for injunctive relief. This Court's resolution will revolve only on the propriety of the injunction. Any reference to the validity or invalidity of the transfers and the titles is merely preliminary, as the matter should be resolved after trial on the merits.
The Court however holds suspect the acquisition by Greenfield Development Corporation of the two parcels. Lot 90-A covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 100177, was promised to be sold to defendant under a contract to sell but the other co-owners did not sign this Contract to Sell, who all denied knowledge of the same. No contract of Sale followed this Contract to Sell which cannot be the bases of the issuance of a new title. A Contract to Sell is only a promise to sell, and is not a deed of sale, specially as this Contact to Sell is not signed by all of the registered owners.
This Court cannot also understand how the document, denominated as DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE WITH MORTGAGE can be the bases (sic) of a new title. The absoluteness of the sale, is contradicted by the mortgage it also provides. There is absoluteness of sale only when the buyer upon execution of the contract, pay (sic) in full the consideration and ownership passes to the Vendee. The registered owners of Lot 90-B covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 100178 even deny having executed this document of Deed of Absolute Sale with Mortgage.
Petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals should not have relied on respondent's allegations regarding the circumstances surrounding the sales and the transfer of the titles. Petitioners point out that trial on the merits of the case is still ongoing and respondent is yet to adduce evidence in support of its contention. The same, however, applies to petitioners' cause of action. They only have their own allegations and are yet to prove their claim. And as stated earlier, the only bases from which the propriety of the injunction can be determined are their respective pleadings and documents. What tilt the balance in respondent's favor are the notarized documents and the titles to the properties. The well-settled rule is that a document acknowledged before a notary public enjoys the presumption of regularity. It is a prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. To overcome this presumption, there must be presented evidence that is clear and convincing. Absent such evidence, the presumption must be upheld.19 In addition, the titles in the name of respondent, having been registered under the Torrens system, are generally a conclusive evidence of the ownership of the land referred to therein,20 and a strong presumption exists that the titles are regularly issued and valid.21 Therefore, until and unless petitioners show that the documents are indeed spurious and the titles invalid, then the presumptions must prevail at this juncture.
Petitioners, however, argue that the presumption of validity of the notarized documents and titles cannot be applied in respondent's case as it is not an innocent purchaser.22 According to petitioners, respondent is fully aware that at the time that the Contract to Sell was entered into in 1962, Leon Medina who is a co-owner of the property then covered by TCT No. 21314, was already dead. Suffice it to say that these arguments already involve the merits of the main case pending before the trial court, which should not even be preliminarily dealt with, as it would be premature.
Petitioners also claim that they are in actual possession of the property. As alleged in their complaint, they instituted Santos Arevalo, a co-petitioner, as caretaker.26 They also alleged in their petition filed before this Court that Balbino and Yolanda Medina and their respective families are still residing on a portion of the property.27 Respondent belies their claim, declaring that it employed Arevalo as caretaker. Respondent presented a notarized Receipt and Quitclaim dated April 26, 1994, signed by Arevalo, who attested that he was employed by respondent as caretaker and that his stay on the property was a mere privilege granted by respondent.
In sum, the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction, and the Court of Appeals was correct in nullifying the same.
The Court, however, finds that it was precipitate for the Court of Appeals to rule that petitioners' action is barred by prescription. As previously stressed, the parties are yet to prove their respective allegations and the trial court is yet to receive the evidence. There is nothing on record that can conclusively support the conclusion that the action is barred by prescription. Hence, the Court of Appeals should not have made such ruling.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated July 16, 1999 rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 52015 is AFFIRMED, except as to its view on prescription, as discussed in the body of the text.
Let the original records of this case be remanded to the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City (Branch 276) with dispatch for further proceedings.
2 Id., pp. 19-22, Annex "C."
3 Id., pp. 160-165, Annex "I."
4 Id., pp. 23-28, Annex "D."
5 Id., pp. 29-31, Annexes "E," "F," and "G."
11 Associate Justice Candido V. Rivera, ponente; Associate Justices Cancio C. Garcia (now a Member of this Court) and Bernardo Ll. Salas, concurring.
12 CA Rollo, p. 196.
15 CA Rollo, pp. 189-195.
16 First Global Realty and Development Corporation v. San Agustin, G.R. No. 144499, February 19, 2002, 377 SCRA 341, 349.
17 Tayag v. Lacson, G.R. No. 134971, March 25, 2004.
18 Heirs of Joaquin Asuncion v. Gervacio, Jr., G.R. No. 115741, March 9, 1999, 304 SCRA 322, 329.
19 Ceballos v. Mercado, G.R. No. 155856, May 28, 2004.
20 Section 49, Act 496; Tichangco v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 150629, June 30, 2004.
21 Ching v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 59731, January 11, 1990, 181 SCRA 9, 18.
23 Searth Commodities Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 64220, March 31, 1992, 207 SCRA 622, 629-630.
25 Supra., Note 23. Searth Commodities Corp. case.
28 Sabio v. International Corporate Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 132709, September 4, 2001, 364 SCRA 385, 416.

References: v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.