G.R. No. 204965 - SPOUSES ESPIRITU ESPIRITU, ROMULO H. AND EVELYN, VS. SPOUSES NICANOR SAZON AND ANNALIZA G. SAZON.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the writ of preliminary injunction [42] issued in the instant case must be upheld, and the status quo - or the last actual, peaceful, and uncontested status that precedes the actual controversy, which is existing at the time of the filing of the case - must be preserved until the merits of the case can be heard fully. The dispositive portion of the November 11, 2009 Order granting Sps. Sazon's application for an injunctive writ reads: WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this Court, but without necessarily going into the merits of the case, that the right of the plaintiff to the relief prayed for seems to have been duly established; that the considerations of relative inconvenience bear strongly in favor of the plaintiffs; that there seems to be a willful and unlawful invasion of plaintiff's right against his protests and remonstrance; that the injury being substantial, irreparable, and continuing one, let a writ of preliminary injunction be issued against the defendants and such other persons acting in their behalf, restraining/ ordering said defendants Espiritu from committing acts of possession over the subject parcel of land and restraining them from constructing a factory and warehouse thereat or other buildings , provided, said plaintiff post a bond in the amount of P1,000,000.00 in favor of the defendants, to the effect that the same will pay to such party or person enjoined all damages which the latter may suffer/sustain by reason of the injunction if the court should finally decide that the plaintiff was not entitled thereto. [43] (Emphasis supplied) To clarify, the scope of the directive in the afore-quoted order should be limited to further acts of dominion that may be conducted by Sps. Espiritu, i.e ., the construction of factory, warehouse or other building on the subject land, or other similar acts that may be validly undertaken by an owner over his land, and not their eviction therefrom. Records show that prior to and during the institution of the complaint on October 5, 2006, Sps. Espiritu are in actual physical possession of the subject land, such possession appearing to have commenced as early as August 2003 when they fenced the same. [44] This is, therefore, the status quo ante litem or the state of affairs existing at the time of the filing of the complaint that must be preserved. As the present registered owners having a subsisting certificate of title in their names, Sps. Espiritu have the right to be maintained in the possession of the subject land [45] until their title is nullified, [46] which is the very issue in the proceedings a quo. In issuing the writ of preliminary injunction, the RTC is presumed to have been guided by the dictum that it cannot make use of its injunctive power to alter the status quo ante litem . [47] Hence, it could not have contemplated the eviction of Sps. Espiritu from the subject land and the transfer of its possession to Sps. Sazon because it wil