G.R. No. 139767 - FELIPE SY DUNGOG, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, JUAN A. GATO, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS RTC SHERIFF, LAPU-LAPU CITY AND CARLOS GOTHONG LINES, INC..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing considerations, plaintiff's application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is GRANTED. Consequently, after the filing and approval of a bond in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00), let a writ of preliminary injunction issue, enjoining defendants, their representatives, or anyone acting in their behalf; (a) from canceling the contract to sell dated December 31, 1996; and (b) from disallowing or preventing the entry and exit of plaintiff's vehicles and those of its representatives through Lot 1031-F and other undelivered lots concerned. [8] Based on this Order, the trial court issued the Writ on 18 August 1998 which the sheriff served on the same date. Felipe assailed the Order and the Writ in a special civil action for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The appellate court, however, dismissed outright Felipe's petition. The appellate court also denied on 24 August 1999 Felipe's motion for reconsideration. Thus, Felipe filed the instant petition questioning the propriety of the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the trial court. The Rulings of the Trial Court and the Court of Appeals In granting the Writ, the trial court stated - There is no dispute that plaintiff has already paid defendants the amount of P51,248,348.26 out of the total consideration of P65,520,475.00. Plaintiff has also deposited with the Office of the Clerk of Court the amount of P4,048,950.00, leaving a balance of P10,223,176.74. Plaintiff had already started the road development in the properties delivered to it. In other words, it has already spent much to develop the properties which form the bulk of the parcels of land subject of the contract. Ingress to and egress from plaintiff's development activities lie on an undelivered parcel of land. Through it pass the vehicles, equipment, supplies and materials, as well as the workers, required by the project. The closure of this passage has apparently stymied the development in the area. About 78% of the properties are in the hands of plaintiff. Access to these properties is under the control of defendants, the entrance being located in Lot 1031-F, one of the remaining undelivered lots. Since the entrance gate has been closed by defendants, it strikes the mind of the court that Lot 1031-F and the other undelivered lots have now, in a manner of speaking, imprisoned the delivered properties. It is not therefore hard to see that the closure of the entrance gate has worked to the prejudice of plaintiff and will certainly jeopardize the development work in the delivered properties. Elementary justice and the spirit of fair play thus dictate that the status quo ante, which is the situation before the closure when plaintiff's representatives were able to pass through Lot 1031-F, be restored. Insofar as defendants threatened cancellation of the contract to sell, the Court has seen that out of the total area of 131,040.95 square meters covered by the