Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=84256:59994&amp;catid=1594&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 22:08:51+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 193809, March 23, 2015 - SATURNINO NOVECIO, GAVINO NOVECIO, ANASTACIO GOLEZ, ABUNDIO SOMBILON, BERTING RODRIGUEZ, MELITON CATALAN, Petitioners, v. HON. RODRIGO F. LIM, JR., AS CHAIRMAN, HON. LEONCIA R. DIMAGIBA AS PONENTE AND AS MEMBER AND HON. ANGELITA A. GACUTAN AS MEMBER, FORMER TWENTY-THIRD DIVISION, COURT OF APPEALS, MINDANAO STATION, HON. JUDGE BENJAMIN ESTRADA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 9, RTC, MALAYBALAY, BUKIDNON, MARIA CARMEN J. TUAZON, REP. BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, LOPE DUROTAN, Respondents.; VERGELIO ROSALES, LUIS TEQUILIO, GREGORIO PANANGIN, JOSEPH RODRIQUEZ, EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, Petitioners, v. HON. RODRIGO F. LIM, JR., AS CHAIRMAN, HON. LEONCIA R. DIMAGIBA AS PONENTE AND AS MEMBER DESIGNATED AS ACTING CHAIRPERSON, PER SPECIAL ORDER NO. 1955 DATED MARCH 23, 2015. DESIGNATED AS ACTING MEMBER VICE ASSOCIATE JUSTICE ANTONIO T. CARPIO, PER SPECIAL ORDER NO. 1956 DATED MARCH 23, 2015. AND HON. ANGELITA A. GACUTAN AS MEMBER, FORMER TWENTY-THIRD DIVISION, COURT OF APPEALS, MINDANAO STATION, HON. JUDGE BENJAMIN ESTRADA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 9, RTC, MALAYBALAY, BUKIDNON, MANUEL V. NIETO, REP. BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, LOPE DUROTAN, Respondent.
SATURNINO NOVECIO, GAVINO NOVECIO, ANASTACIO GOLEZ, ABUNDIO SOMBILON, BERTING RODRIGUEZ, MELITON CATALAN, Petitioners, v. HON. RODRIGO F. LIM, JR., AS CHAIRMAN, HON. LEONCIA R. DIMAGIBA AS PONENTE AND AS MEMBER AND HON. ANGELITA A. GACUTAN AS MEMBER, FORMER TWENTY-THIRD DIVISION, COURT OF APPEALS, MINDANAO STATION, HON. JUDGE BENJAMIN ESTRADA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 9, RTC, MALAYBALAY, BUKIDNON, MARIA CARMEN J. TUAZON, REP. BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, LOPE DUROTAN, Respondents.
VERGELIO ROSALES, LUIS TEQUILIO, GREGORIO PANANGIN, JOSEPH RODRIQUEZ, EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, Petitioners, v. HON. RODRIGO F. LIM, JR., AS CHAIRMAN, HON. LEONCIA R. DIMAGIBA AS PONENTE AND AS MEMBER DESIGNATED AS ACTING CHAIRPERSON, PER SPECIAL ORDER NO. 1955 DATED MARCH 23, 2015. DESIGNATED AS ACTING MEMBER VICE ASSOCIATE JUSTICE ANTONIO T. CARPIO, PER SPECIAL ORDER NO. 1956 DATED MARCH 23, 2015. AND HON. ANGELITA A. GACUTAN AS MEMBER, FORMER TWENTY-THIRD DIVISION, COURT OF APPEALS, MINDANAO STATION, HON. JUDGE BENJAMIN ESTRADA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 9, RTC, MALAYBALAY, BUKIDNON, MANUEL V. NIETO, REP. BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, LOPE DUROTAN, Respondent.
We resolve the petition for certiorari1 filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction. The petition assails the resolutions2 dated January 28, 2010 and July 16, 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.SP No. 02863.
The assailed resolutions denied the petitioners' prayer for the issuance of a preliminary injunction pending resolution of the Petition for Review filed in the CA. The subject of the Petition for Review was the consolidated decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 9, Malaybalay, Bukidnon, which reversed the decision of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Quezon, Bukidnon. The MTC dismissed the forcible entry cases filed by the respondents against the petitioners.
The respondents alleged that on February 15, 2004, the petitioners, by force, intimidation, threat, strategy and stealth, unlawfully squatted and took possession of several portions of land with an area of eight (8) hectares, described as Project No. 9, Block 1, LC Map No. 777. The petitioners allegedly planted crops, erected makeshift shelters, and continue to plant and /or improve the shelters as of the filing of the complaints for forcible entry, all without the consent and/or against the will of the respondents.
The MTC found that the respondents anchored their alleged prior possession on the fact that they have applied title for the land as shown by a certification authorizing land survey.9 Other than this, the respondents had no evidence of their actual and physical possession of the land. The MTC also found that they were not even residents of the place and never personally appeared in court during trial.
The respondents appealed the MTC decision to the RTC.
The RTC held that the MTC ignored some pieces of evidence, warranting the reversal of the decision.
In view of these, the RTC ruled that the respondents were the actual occupants of the property in litigation long before the petitioners had taken possession of the same property. The RTC ordered the petitioners' ejectment.
The petitioners filed on April 30, 2009 a Petition for Review16 with the CA - Mindanao Station, assailing the judgment of the RTC.
On July 13, 2009, the CA issued a TRO effective for sixty (60) days. Meanwhile, the CA directed the parties to submit their memoranda and position papers.
On January 28, 2010, the CA issued the first assailed resolution denying the petitioners' application for preliminary injunction.18 The CA, without necessarily resolving the petition on the merits, held that the petitioners were not entitled to the relief demanded under Rule 58 of the Rules of Court. The petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was denied on July 16, 2010.
The petitioners impute grave abuse of discretion on the CA in denying their prayer for injunction pending resolution of the Petition for Review.
The petitioners argue that the CA denied their prayer for preliminary injunction despite the pressing need for it to prevent grave and irreparable injury to them. They emphasize that the records clearly show that they were the prior possessors of the subject lot. In fact, the lot has been their home and source of livelihood for several years prior to the institution of the forcible entry cases.
The respondents filed their comment19 on December 3, 2010. They argue that grave abuse of discretion means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion, according to the respondents, is not enough. The respondents maintain that the petitioners are not entitled to the injunctive relief since they have not established a clear legal right for its issuance.
This Court, acting on the petitioners' prayer, issued a TRO on October 18, 2010, enjoining the RTC from executing its decision. The TRO remains effective until this day.
The sole issue is whether or not the CA acted with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, when it denied the petitioners' prayer for preliminary injunction.
Our decision in this case is without prejudice to the Petition for Review pending in the CA. Our judgment is limited to the resolutions of the C A denying the prayer for the issuance of a preliminary injunction.
Subject to this clarification, we find that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied the injunctive relief prayed for by the petitioners.
Without necessarily resolving the instant petition on the merits, We find [the] petitioners not entitled to the relief demanded under Rule 58 of the Revised Rules of Procedure. Thus, [the] petitioners' application for the issuance of [a] Writ of Preliminary Injunction is hereby DENIED.
Upon careful evaluation of [the] petitioners' Motion, We find no cogent and compelling reasons to warrant reversal of Our Resolution. The arguments raised by [the] petitioners were mere reiteration and already considered and passed upon by this Court in denying [the] petitioners' application for issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction.
A review of the records, however, shows that the CA ignored relevant facts that would have justified the issuance of a preliminary injunction. Contrary to established jurisprudence, the CA also denied the prayer for preliminary injunction without giving the factual and legal bases for such denial.
That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual.
In this case, the petitioners have adequately shown their entitlement to a preliminary injunction. First, the relief demanded consists in restraining the execution of the RTC decision ordering their ejectment from the disputed land. Second, their ejectment from the land from which they derive their source of livelihood would work injustice to the petitioners. Finally, the execution of the RTC decision is probably in violation of the rights of the petitioners, tending to render the MTC judgment dismissing the forcible entry cases ineffectual.
Thus, we do not understand why the CA denied the prayer for preliminary injunction without citing any legal or factual basis for the denial. The CA resolution provides: "[We] find [the] petitioners not entitled to the relief demanded under Rule 58 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure."
Neither does the resolution denying the petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration contain any factual and legal bases for the denial. It only provides that "[u]pon careful evaluation of the petitioners' Motion, We find no cogent and compelling reasons to warrant reversal of Our Resolution."
We therefore have no idea why and how the CA came to the conclusion that the petitioners are not entitled to the injunctive relief. Hence, we are forced to go beyond the function of a certiorari under Rule 65 and examine the factual findings of the MTC and the RTC.
The MTC found that the petitioners have been in actual and physical possession of the land for more than two (2) years prior to the institution of the complaints for forcible entry.27 The MTC also found that the respondents were not even sure how the petitioners entered the land. In their complaints, they alleged that petitioners entered the land by means of "force, intimidation, threat, stealth and strategy," a shotgun allegation which shows that respondents' lack knowledge of how the petitioners entered the disputed property.
The RTC, on the other hand, relied on a mere request for authority to conduct a land survey, allegedly showing that respondent Manuel V. Nieto was the occupant and tiller of the land.
However, this document does not prove prior possession of the subject land. It only points to the fact that there was an application for a land title in the name of one of the respondents, which application was not even shown to have been granted. This document merely authorized the survey of the land; the declaration regarding possession was just incidental to the application for land survey.
Between the clear findings of the MTC, which conducted the trial of the forcible entry cases, and the RTC acting as an appellate court, which relied on documentary evidence but without sufficiently explaining how such evidence would prove prior possession, we are inclined to give weight to the MTC's ruling.
Under this factual backdrop, we conclude that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied the prayer for preliminary injunction without explanation and justification.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, we GRANT the writ of certiorari and accordingly SET ASIDE the resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated January 28, 2010 and July 16, 2010 for grave abuse of discretion.
1Rollo, pp. 3-25, received by this Court on October 12, 2010.
2 Id. at 41-42 and 44-45; penned by Associate Justice Leoncia R. Dimagiba, and concurred in by Associate Justices Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. and Angelita A. Gacutan.
4 Id. at 72-78, docketed as Civil Case Nos. 453 and 454.
5 Abundio Sombilon, Berting Rodriguez, Meliton Catalan, Vergelio Rosales, Luis Tequilio, Gregorio Panangin, Joseph Rodriguez and Eddie Rodriguez.
8 Id. at 99-106, consolidated decision in Civil Case Nos. 453 and 454, dated November 7, 2005, penned by Presiding Judge Dante L. Villa.
13 Id. at 107-110, consolidated decision In Civil Case Nos. 3491-05 and 3492-05, dated February 17, 2009, penned by Presiding Judge Josefina Gentiles Bacal.
14 Id. at 108. The request for authority to conduct survey was dated June 14, 1999.
20 The records do not contain any notice that the Petition for Review has been decided by the CA.
21New Frontier Sugar Corporation v. Regional Trial Court, Branch 39, Iloilo City, G.R. No. 165001, January 31, 2007 (513 SCRA 601, 610).
22National Artist for Literature Virgilio Almario v. The Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 189028, July 16, 2013, 701 SCRA 269, 316 citing Doromal v. Biron, G.R. No. 181809, February 17, 2010, 613 SCRA 160, 172; St. Mary of the Woods School, Inc. v. Office of the Registry of Deeds of Makati City, G.R. No. 174290, January 20, 2009, 576 SCRA 713, 727; Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines v. Commission on Elections, 464 Phil. 173 (2004).
23Power Sites and Signs, Inc. v. United Neon, G.R. No. 163406, November 24, 2009 605 SCRA 196,208.
29Heirs of Claudel v. Hon. Court of Appeals, 276 Phil. 114, 126 (1991). Cortez-Estrada v. Heirs of Domingo/Antonia Samut, 491 Phil. 458, 472 (2005).

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