In civil case No. 3316 of the Court of First  Instance of Occidental Negros, Augusto Villarosa  et al., plaintiffs vs. Amado P. Jalandoni et  al., defendants,  for recovery of possession and ownership of two parcels  of land (ejectment), upon motion of the plaintiffs,  the Court issued a writ of preliminary injunction  restraining  the  defendant Amado B. Parreno, in his capacity as judicial administrator  of the estate of the late spouses Wenceslao B. Parreno and Virginia Villanueva, from  continuing with the construction of a house on one of the lots  (Lot No. 983 of the Cadastral Survey of Bago) involved in the litigation and from exercising acts of possession over said lot during the pendency of the case, upon the filing of a bond in the sum of P3,000 with sufficient sureties  (Annex F).  A  bond  for such amount filed by the plaintiffs was approved by the Court (Annex G).  Seven days after, or  on 30 May 1955, the defendant Amado B. Parreno,  in his  capacity aforesaid, filed a  motion to dissolve  the  writ thus issued,  on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to serve upon him a copy of the bond; that the amount of the bond filed by them was insufficient to answer for all the damage that the  defendant may sustain  by reason of the writ should  the Court finally decide that they are not entitled to the issuance thereof, not only because the sureties have not shown or proved their solvency but also because they have not stated and described the properties that would guarantee the fulfillment of their undertaking.  The  defendant moving for the dissolution of the writ offered  to  file a bond in the amount of P10,000 or in such amount as the Court may fix with sufficient sureties, conditioned that the moving defendant will pay all damages that the plaintiffs may suffer by reason of the continuance during the  action of the acts complained of.  The plaintiffs objected to  the defendant's motion  to dissolve the  injunction on the ground  that  by refusing to receive a copy of the bond, he waived his right to question its sufficiency and the solvency of the sureties and cannot claim that he was not furnished with a copy thereof, and that there is no valid reason why the writ of preliminary injunction  should  be dissolved.  On  4 June 1955 the Court dissolved the writ of preliminary injunction theretofore issued and approved the  bond for P10,000 filed by the defendant  Amado B. Parreño.

Claiming that the Court acted with grave abuse of discretion in  dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction and that there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the petitioners, plaintiffs in the court below, filed this petition for a writ of certiorari to set aside the order of 4 June 1955  that  dissolved the writ of preliminary injunction theretofore issued  and prayed  for a writ  of preliminary injunction to restrain the respondent court from carrying out or giving effect to the order dissolving the writ of injunction.  On 20 June 1955 this Court issued the writ of preliminary injunction as prayed for.

The facts pleaded in the amended complaint filed by the petitioners in the respondent court,  if established  by  admissible, competent and credible evidence, would affect only the title of the defendants Amado P. Jalandoni  and  Ramon O. Matti who, it is alleged, knew  or had knowledge of the  defective title of Amado  P.  Jalandoni,  his predecessor-in-interest,  but there is  nothing alleged  in  the amended complaint that would place the defendant Amado B. Parrefio, in his capacity as administrator of the estate of the  late spouses Wenceslao B. Parrefio and  Virginia Villanueva,  upon the  same  level  as  his  co-defendants Amado P. Jalandoni and Ramon O.  Matti.  The only allegation affecting  him is that in purchasing the lots from Ramon  O. Matti he "acted  with negligence amounting to bad faith de jure in failing  to take  the  necessary steps so that he would have  come to know positively of  the claim of ownership and actual possession which the plaintiffs have over Lot 983 aforesaid, as alleged in paragraphs IV, V and VI hereof."  (Annex B.)  From this allegation it may  be inferred that after acquiring the two  lots  for the estate of the late spouses Wenceslao B. Parreñio and Virginia Villanueva  and once in possesion of the  Torrens transfer certificate of title No. 16897 for Lot No. 983 of the Cadastral Survey of Bago issued in the name  of  the estate of the late  spouses, the respondent Amado B. Parreñio, in 'his capacity as administrator of the estate of  the late spouses,  took possession  of the two lots and started to build a house  on Lot No. 983.  Even granting that petitioners  have been in  possession of  the  two lots,  the Torrens "title."give" 'the  owner the right io take possession of the property registered in his name.

The petitioners further contend that the  writ of preliminary injunction should not issue to deprive a person of the possession of a parcels of land.   They claim that they have been in  possession of the two parcels of land.  The writ issued by the respondent court protected the possession of the petitioners if they were in possession  of Lot No.  983.  If they were not but the respondent Amado B. Parreñio, the latter was deprived thereof by the writ.  The dissolution  of the writ did not give or deprive anyone of the possession of the land but restored the status quo before the  issuance of the writ.

A  writ of preliminary injunction is an  interlocutory order and is  under the control of the  Court before final judgment in the case.  The writ issued may be dissolved for  reasons stated in the rule.^[1]

Considering that the bond  filed  by  the petitioners, as found fey the respondent  court, is merely a character bond and does not state and  describe the properties that will answer for the payment of aU the damage that the defendant may  suffer by reason  of the issuance of the  writ; that had the  respondent  court been apprised of the defect it Would not have approved the bond; and it appearing, on the  other, hand, that the  respondent Amado B. Parreñio, in his  capacity  aforesaid, was  willing and  ready to  file  a bond with sufficient sureties  to answer  and pay  for all damages that the plaintiffs,  petitioners herein,  may suffer  by reason of the continuance during the action  of the acts complained  of ^[2] a bond for PI0,000 was filed by the respondent Amado  B.   Parreñio and  approved by the respondent court we cannot say  that  the  respondent court abused its  discretion  in  dissolving  the writ of preliminary injunction theretofore issued.

Petition denied  and  the writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued  dissolved, with costs against  the petitioners.

Paras,  C.  J.,  Montemayor,  Bautista Angelo,  Labrador, Concepcion,  Reyes,  J,  B. L., Endenda,  and Felix,  JJ., concur.
   
   

---

^[1] Section 8, Rule 60; Calaya vs. Alamos, 45 Off. Gaz. 2075, citing Manila Electric Co. vs. Artiaga and Green,  50 Phil. 144, 147.

^[2] Section 6, Rule 60.