Bataclan vs. CA Digest

Bataclan vs. CA, G.R. No.
78148, July 31, 1981
Facts:
Petitioners Apolinario, Eleazar, Napoleon and Herminia, all surnamed Bataclan, together
with several others, are the registered co-owners of a parcel of land located in Cavite. Private
respondents are the occupants and cultivators of said land. Pedro Caragao and his wife filed
Civil Case against the Bataclans in the Regional Trial Court of Tagaytay, for the reconveyance or
cancellation of title over the aforesaid parcel of land. A judgment by default was rendered by
the trial court and a writ of execution pending appeal was issued and by virtue of said writ, the
Caragao spouses were placed in possession of the land. At that time, the land was planted to
sugarcane crops which were already nine months old.
Thereafter, petitioners filed with the respondent court a petition for certiorari with
injunction to annul the aforesaid judgment by default and the writ of execution issued pending
appeal which the court granted and issued a restraining order. Subsequently, Caragaos filed a
petition for review on certiorari but the same was denied. However, Caragaos, in utter
disregard of the restraining order issued by the Court of Appeal, sold to a certain Raymundo
Lucido the sugarcane planted by herein petitioners and, by virtue of said sale, Caragao, Lucido
and the aforesaid three private respondents cut and took away the sugarcane without the
knowledge and consent of petitioners.
However, private respondents filed a complaint for damages with injunction against
herein petitioners before the Regional Trial Court of Tagaytay which the court granted. With the
finality of the decision, the trial court, upon motion of petitioners, issued a writ of execution to
restore possession of the land to them. Thereafter, the trial court issued an order denying the
prayer for preliminary injunction however, the Court of Appeals reversed such decision and
issued writ of preliminary injunction.
Issue: Whether or not the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is proper under the
factual situation obtaining in this case.
Ruling: No.
A writ of preliminary injunction, as an ancillary or preventive remedy, may only be

resorted to by a litigant to protect or preserve his rights or interests and for no other purpose
during the pendency of the principal action. 8 In the issuance thereof, the courts are given
sufficient discretion to determine the necessity for the grant of the relief prayed for as it affects
the respective rights of the parties, with the caveat that extreme caution be observed in the
exercise of such discretion. Quintessentially, it is with an equal degree of care and caution that
courts ought to proceed in the denial of the writ. It should not just summarily issue an order of
denial without an adequate hearing and judicious evaluation of the merits of the application. A
perfunctory and improvident action in this regard would be a denial of procedural due process
and could result in irreparable prejudice to a party.
In the case at bar, it is patent that herein petitioners did not intend to forthwith oust
private respondents from the contested lot. In their answer, petitioners merely sought to
dismiss the complaint and, by way of counterclaim, to recover damages. The trial court,
therefore, gravely abused its discretion in ordering the ejectment of herein private
respondents. In effect, it disposed of the main case without the requisite hearing on the
evidence to be presented. The denial order of January 13, 1986 is, for all intents and purposes,
an adjudication on the merits of the case, in gross violation of the constitutional mandate that a
party shall have the right to be heard and to present evidence. This fact alone would suffice to
warrant a denial of the instant petition.
A writ of preliminary injunction is primarily intended to maintain the status quo

between the parties existing prior to the filing of the case. The status quo for private
respondents as tenants, either as tillers, cultivators, or occupants, should consequently be
maintained until the issue on their status as such shall have been determined after trial.

Bataclan vs. CA Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bataclan vs. CA Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bataclan vs. CA Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bataclan vs. CA, G.R. No.

78148, July 31, 1981

A writ of preliminary injunction, as an ancillary or preventive remedy, may only be

A writ of preliminary injunction is primarily intended to maintain the status quo

You might also like