[No.6434.February6,1912.] LUCAS REYES, SANTOS NORUA, and JUAN ACEVEROS ROQUE, plaintiffs and appellants, vs. MGR.

JEREMIAH J. HARTY,ArchbishopofManila,defendantandappellee.
1. INJUNCTION ACTS FULLY PERFORMED CAN NOT BE RESTRAINED.An action for a permanent restraining injunction shouldbedismissedwhenitappearsuponthetrialthattheacts,to restrainwhichtheactionwasbegun,havebeenfullyexecuted. 2. PLEADING AND PRACTICE MOTION TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT ABANDONMENT OF MOTION.Where after the trial the plaintiff moves to file an amended complaint and the motionisdenied,

423

VOL.21,FEBRUARY6,1912.
Reyesvs.Harty.

423

and the plaintiff does not take exception to such denial or, upon appeal,assignsuchdenialaserrororarguethatquestioninhisbrief or his oral argument, but, instead, relies entirely upon his original complaint,hewillbedeemedtohaveabandonedhisoffertofilean amendedcomplaint.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Rizal. Yusay,J. Thefactsarestatedintheopinionofthecourt. A.CruzHerrera,forappellants. WilliamA.KincaidandThomasL.Hartigan,forappellee. MORELAND,J.: TheplaintiffsallegeasacauseofactionthatLinoCajili,aparish priest of the Roman Catholic Church at Malabon, and, as administratoroftheCapellanaofMalabon,onoraboutthe20thday

of February, 1908, leased to the plaintiffs certain lands specifically describedinthecomplaintfortheperiodofsixyearsfromsaiddate that immediately on the execution of said lease the plaintiffs entered into possession of said lands and thereupon sublet most of them to other persons, retaining possession of those portions not leased that theArchbishopofManila,defendantinthisaction,byhisagentsand employees,entereduponsaidlandspriortothecommencementofthis action,proceededtosurveysameandleasethemtootherpersons,in contraventionoftherightsofplaintiffsundertheleasereferredtothat theplaintiffs, verbally andin writing, priortothecommencement of thisaction,notifiedthedefendant,hisagentsandemployees,oftheir rights in the premises, and forbade them to proceed f urther in what they were executing or to do any other acts in connection with said property that by reason of said acts of defendant the plaintiffs have suffereddamageinthesumofP3,000. Upontheseallegationstheplaintiffsask,intheoriginalcomplaint, thefollowingrelief: (a) That they have judgment against the defendant prohibiting theperformanceoftheactsabovedescribedand
424

424

PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED Reyesvs.Harty. ofanyotheractsinviolationoftherightsoftheplaintiffsin theleasedlands. (b) That the plaintiffs have judgment against the defendants for thesumofP3,000asdamagesfortheactscomplainedof. (c) That the court issue a preliminary injunction against the defendantorderinghim,hisagentsandemployees,toabstain fromperforminganyactordoinganythinginviolationofthe rights of the plaintiffs in the lands referred to during the pendencyofthisaction.

Theanswerdeniedallofthematerialallegationsofthecomplaint.It alsoallegedthelackofauthorityonthepartofLinoCajilitomakethe lease described in the complaint, and that the lease in question was enteredintoasaresultofaconspiracyonthepartoftheplaintiffsand saidLinoCajilitoprejudicethedefendantandhisinterests.Thecause went to trial and evidence was introduced for the purpose of sustainingtheallegationsofthecomplaintandoflayingabasisforthe

relief demanded thereunder. It appearing, however, on the trial that the lands aforesaid had, at the time of the trial, been actually seized and taken possession of by the defendant and the plaintiffs ousted from their occupation of the same, the plaintiffs, after the trial had beenterminated,butpriortothesubmissionofthecaseuponwritten argument, asked leave to file an amended complaint, which, in addition to the facts alleged in the original complaint, contained the followingallegations: "Thatshortlyaftertheplaintiffshadtakenpossessionofthelands in question they were forcibly dispossessed of the same by the defendant, through his agents and employees, who since that time have been in possession of said land, administering the same and receivingandcollectingthefruitsandprofitsthereofforhisownuse." The proposed amended complaint further alleges the right of the plaintiffstorecoverpossessionofsaidlandsasagainstthedefendant, andendswiththefollowingprayer: "Theplaintiffsthereforepray: "(a) Thatthecourtdeclarevalidandsubsistingthelease
425

VOL.21,FEBRUARY6,1912. Reyesvs.Harty.

425

describedinthecomplaint,executedbyLinoCajiliinfavor oftheplaintiffsonFebruary20,1908 "(b) That the court restore and deliver to the plaintiffs the possessionofsaidlands "(c) Thatthecourtreservetotheplaintiffstherighttorecoverthe damages caused and which are being caused by the defendantduringtheperiodofhispossession." The court reserved its decision as to the motion to file the said amended complaint. The first notice that the plaintiffs had of the refusalofthecourttopermitthefilingoftheamendedcomplaintwas thatconveyedtothembythedecisionofthecourtfinallydisposingof thecase. Theplaintiffstooknospecialexceptiontotherefusalofthecourt topermitthecomplainttobeamended,andonthisappealassignedno errorinthatregard.Theirrighttothatreliefwasnotinquestioninthe court below and is not in question on appeal, the whole brief of the plaintiffsbeingconfined,bothinextentandinargument,tothefacts

allegedintheoriginalcomplaintandtheproofsmadethereunder.Not havingtakenanyexception,andnothavingpresentedthequestionon this appeal, either by assignment of error or by argument, this court must assume that the plaintiffs abandoned their request to file an amendedcomplaint. Thisbeingso,theonlyquestionremainingforourconsiderationis thatoftherightoftheplaintiffstoapreliminaryinjunctionrestraining the defendant, his agents and employees, from performing any act lookingtothedispossessionoftheplaintiffsfromthelandsdescribed inthecomplaint. Itisauniversalprincipleofthelawthataninjunctionwillnotissue torestraintheperformanceofanactalreadydone.Itistheundisputed proof in this case, presented by the plaintiffs themselves, that, at the time this cause was tried, the plaintiffs had been completely dispossessed,thedefendantbeinginfullandcompletepossessionof thelandsinquestionandadministeringtheminbehalfofthechurch. Thisbeingso,theactionforinjunctionfails.
426

426

PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED UnitedStatesvs.GoLeng.

Thejudgmentisaffirmeduponthisgroundalone,itnotbeingdesired bythiscourttoplacethedecisiononanygroundwhichwillprevent the plaintiffs from exercising any rights of action which they may haveinrelationtosaidlandsagainstthedefendant,ifany.Nospecial findingastocosts. Arellano,C.J.,Torres,Mapa,Johnson,Carson,and Trent,JJ., concur. Judgmentaffirmed. _______________

Copyright2013CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.