This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-09-04 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In issuing the subject writ, respondent CA certainly ignored the fundamental rule in Our jurisdiction that a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction cannot be used to oust a party from his possession of a property and to put in his place another party whose right has not been clearly established.[52] Respondent CA should have exercised more prudence, considering that the arguments raised by petitioners in their Comment in CA-G.R. SP No. 02084-MIN deserve more credit than private respondents' bare allegations. Other than the Quitclaim Deed and the Transfer of Free Patent Rights, which were long ago nullified in Heirs of John Z. Sycip v. Court of Appeals,[53] the other public documents "left untouched by the Supreme Court and the other lower courts for that matter x x x such as the Free Patent Application of Concepcion Non Andres, which were never nullified or declared void by any judicial or quasi-judicial body"[54] being claimed by private respondents are still inconclusive as to their existence and due execution and are highly disputed by petitioners; hence, these cannot be a source of a clear or unmistakable right. At the very least, respondent CA should have accorded respect to the presumed indefeasibility of Original Certificate of Title No. (V-14496) (P-2331) P-523 issued on August 23, 1961 in favor of Melencio Yu, which has not been cancelled to date. | |||||
|
2007-03-01 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The issuance or recall of a preliminary writ of injunction is an interlocutory matter that remains at all times within the control of the court or quasi-judicial body that issued it.[31] Thus, petitioners could not rightfully claim a vested right to an injunctive writ. | |||||