Case Digest: MA. CRISTINA CORTEZ-ESTRADA v. HEIRS OF DOMINGO SAMUT/ ANTONIA SAMUT

MA. CRISTINA CORTEZ-ESTRADA v.
HEIRS OF DOMINGO SAMUT/ ANTONIA SAMUT

451 SCRA 275 (2005), THIRD DIVISION

Emiliano Cortez (Emiliano), father of petitioner Ma. Cristina Cortez-Estrada (Cortez-Estrada), filed Free Patent Application with the Bureau of Lands (Bureau) covering two parcels of land which was approved. Domingo Samut (Samut) represented by Antonia Samut filed before the Bureau a protest claiming that he has since the Second World War been in possession of the properties subject to Free Patent Application. Thus, an investigation was conducted on the grant of Cortez-Estrada‘s patent.

After the death of Emiliano, a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) was issued in favor of his widow, Antonia. Antonia subsequently died intestate and is survived by her children. Upon investigation on the grant of Cortez-Estrada‘s patent and title inspired by Samut‘s assertion that such were obtained by fraud, the Bureau cancelled the patent and title of Cortez-Estrada while directing the heirs of Samut to file the appropriate public land application covering certain lots situated at Libertad Echague, Isabela. No appeal from the above Order was filed.

The State represented by the Director of Lands, filed a complaint for Reversion of Land to Public Domain before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) alleging that Cortez-Estarda deliberately made fraudulent representation in her Free Patent Application, hence the patent and title granted to her should ipso facto be cancelled. In her an swer with the Third Party Complaint, Cortez-Estrada averred that respondent Samut cannot legally acquire the properties by possessory rights despite the alleged period of occupation, for Cortez-Estarada and Joaquin Samut (Joaquin), son of Domingo Samut executed a Contract of Lease.

Under the said contract, Joaquin as lessee, agreed to plant agricultural crops on the properties and deliver to Cortez-Estrada, twenty percent of the crops harvested every year. Thus, Cortez-Estrada prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction to prevent Samut from selling or cultivating the properties or introducing any improvements thereon. The RTC denied Cortez-Estrada‘s plea. Subsequently, her Motion for Reconsideration was also denied. Cortez-Estrada filed a petition for certiorari and a succeeding Motion for Reconsideration before the Court of Appeals which were both denied. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE:

Whether or not it is proper to grant the Cortez-Estrada‘s writ of preliminary injunction

HELD:

A preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy that a party may resort to in order to preserve and protect certain rights and interests during the pendency of an action. Its sole objective is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard fully.

Status quo is defined as the last actual, peaceful, and uncontested status that precedes the actual controversy, that which is existing at the time of the filing of the case. Indubitably, the trial court must not make use of its injunctive power to alter such status.

To entitle a petitioner to the grant of a writ of preliminary injunction, he must establish the following requisites: (a) the invasion of the right sought to be protected is material and substantial; (b) the right of the complainant is clear and unmistakable; and (c) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.

Sine dubio the grant or denial of a writ of preliminary injunction in a pending case rests in the sound discretion of the court taking cognizance of the case since the assessment and evaluation of evidence towards that end involve findings of facts left to the said court for its conclusive determination. Hence, the exercise of judicial discretion by a court in injunctive matters must not be interfered with except when there is grave abuse of discretion.

In fine, a prayer for injunctive relief should not be granted for the purpose of taking the property, the legal title to which is in dispute, out of the possession of one person and putting it into the hands of another before the right of ownership is determined. The reason for this doctrine is that before the issue of ownership is determined in light of the evidence presented, justice and equity demand that the parties be maintained in their status quo so that no advantage may be given to one to the prejudice of the other.

It is with respect to Cortez-Estrada‘s prayer that Heirs of Samut be restrained from selling the properties or portions thereof that the present petition assumes merit. For pending the final determination of the ownership of the properties, private respondents can not exercise the attribute of ownership of jus disponendi. For only the owner can transfer his ownership to another.