G.R. No. 122206 - SPOUSES RAFAEL Y. ARCEGA, AND TERESITA F. ARCEGA, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS (17TH DIVISION), AND RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED by this Court. The questioned Orders dated June 21, 1994 and August 1, 1994 of the respondent court, granting the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction, and denying its reconsideration in Civil Case No. Q-91-9055 are declared null and void. On October 12, 1995, the motion for reconsideration filed by the Arcegas was denied by respondent court. Hence, the instant petition for review was filed seeking the annulment of the Court of Appeals decision for lack of legal basis and for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. On the sole question of whether or not the writ of preliminary injunction was issued with grave abuse of discretion, we affirm respondent courts decision and deny the instant petition. The issuance of the writ was unjustified, the spouses Arcega not having any legal right that merits protection by the court. For the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction to be proper, it must be shown that the invasion of the right sought to be protected is material and substantial, that the right of complainant is clear and unmistakable and that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. [4] In the absence of a clear legal right, the issuance of the injunctive writ constitutes grave abuse of discretion. [5] Injunction is not designed to protect contingent or future rights. Where the complainants right or title is doubtful or disputed, injunction is not proper. [6] The possibility of irreparable damage without proof of actual existing right is no ground for an injunction. [7] The circumstances in the case at bar show that the Arcegas did not possess a clear legal right sought to be protected by said writ. Petitioners defaulted on their loan and failed to redeem the subject property during the extended period granted by the bank. It was only three days prior to the redemption period that petitioners decided to question the foreclosure proceedings, giving the impression that the case at bar is an afterthought or a last-ditch effort to save their property. Title to the property had already been transferred to the bank which now possesses a certificate of title in its name. Respondent banks right to possess the property is clear and is based on its right of ownership as a purchaser of the properties in the foreclosure sale to whom title has been conveyed. [8] Under Section 7 of Act No. 3135 and Section 35 of Rule 39, the purchaser in a foreclosure sale is entitled to possession of the property. [9] The bank in this case has a better right to possess the subject property because of its title over the same. [10] Respondent appellate court added: x x x (I)t was highly irregular for the respondent court to issue the questioned writ based merely on the document of sheriffs certificate of posting. No other evidence, oral or documentary, was ever presented by the private respondents to fully substantiate their prayer for the injunctive rel