#112

NAME: JAIME S. PEREZ VS SPS. FORTUNITO L. MADRONA, GR NO. 184478, 21

MARCH 2012

CAUSE OF ACTION: Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure on the decision of the Court of Appeals

FACTS:

Spouses Fortunito Madrona and Yolanda Pante are the registered owners of a
residential property located in Greenheights Subdivision, Phase 2, Marikina City. In
1989, respondents built their house thereon and enclosed it with a concrete fence
and steel gate. In May 1999, respondents received a letter from petitioner Jaime
Perez, Chief of the Marikina Demolition Office, saying that they must remove the
fence structure built on their property that allegedly extends towards the sidewalk,
and that the said construction of the structure was in violation of PD 1096 (National
Building Code of the Phillippines), Programa sa Kalinisan at Disiplina sa Bangketa
and RA 917 as amended by Sec. 23, PD No. 17, DO No. 4 Series of 1987 (Illegally
occupied/constructed improvements within the road right-of-way). Respondents
were being given 7 days to remove the structure in question, or there were would
be a corresponding action with the non-compliance thereof.

On June 1999, respondents sent petitioner a three-page letter stating that the May
1999 letter (1) contained an accusation libelous in nature as it is condemning him
and his property without due process; (2) has no basis and authority since there is
no court order authorizing him to demolish their structure; (3) cited legal bases
which do not expressly give petitioner authority to demolish; and (4) contained a
false accusation since their fence did not in fact extend to the sidewalk.

On February 2001, petitioner sent another letter with the same contents as the May
1999 lette but this time giving respondents ten days from receipt thereof to remove
the structure allegedly protruding to the sidewalk. Respondents then filed a
complaint for injunction before the Marikina City RTC on March 2001, and likewise
sought the issuance of a TRO and a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin
petitioner from doing any act of demolition on their property and that after trial, the
injunction be made permanent.

ISSUE:
Are the requisites for the issuance of a writ of injunction present in the case?

RULING: Yes, the requisites of a writ of injunction are present in the case.

RATI DECIDENDI:

For injunction to issue, two requisites must concur: first, there must be a right to be
protected and second, the acts against which the injunction is to be directed are
violative of said right. Here, the two requisites are clearly present: there is a right to
be protected, that is, respondents right over their concrete fence which cannot be
removed without due process; and the act, the summary demolition of the concrete
fence, against which the injunction is directed, would violate said right. Petitioner
would have to prove in court that the property in question is in fact violative of
existing laws. The petitioner cannot just simply present an action to demolish such
without the existence of a court order.