SATURNINO NOVECIO, GAVINO NOVECIO, ANASTACIO GOLEZ, ABUNDIO SOMBILON, BERTING RODRIGUEZ, MELITON CATALAN, VS. HON. RODRIGO F. LIM, JR., AS CHAIRMAN, HON. LEONCIA R. DIMAGIBA AS

Ruling

WHEREFORE , by preponderance of evidence showing defendants' prior physical possession of the land and the filing of the complaint beyond the one-year period[,] judgment is rendered in favor of the defendants DISMISSING the cases. [12] The respondents appealed the MTC decision to the RTC. The RTC's Ruling The RTC reversed the MTC decision. [13] The RTC held that the MTC ignored some pieces of evidence, warranting the reversal of the decision. The RTC ruled that the MTC should have given credence to the certification issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Community Environment and Natural Resources Office ( DENR-CENRO ) showing that the land in litigation is the subject of an application for title and claim by the respondents. The RTC also took judicial notice of the request for authority to conduct a survey over the subject property, which provides that "the parcel of land herein treated was an unsurveyed land and Manuel V. Nieto was the identified occupant and tiller of the land." [14] 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 dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads: WHEREFORE , premises considered and finding the appeal to be with merit, the assailed Consolidated Decision dated November 7, 2005 of the Municipal Trial Court of Quezon, Bukidnon is hereby reversed and set aside, finding in favor of plaintiff-appellants, ordering the ejectment of all defendants-appellees and "John Does" in both cases and for them to turn over peaceful possession/occupancy of the landholding in litigation. No pronouncement as to costs. [15] The Proceedings before the CA The petitioners filed on April 30, 2009 a Petition for Review [16] with the CA - Mindanao Station, assailing the judgment of the RTC. As the respondents sought the execution of the RTC judgment, the petitioners filed on May 14, 2010 an Extremely Urgent Application for Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Immediate Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order. [17] 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 Petition 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 t