Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lustiva 292
GR No. 172909, 05 March 2014, Brion, J.
PETs claim that the subject land belongs to them, as they had acquired the land from a certain
Tuazon, who was the winner in a public auction of the land. The Court ruled that the PETs had
falsified the tax declaration which RESPs based their claim upon, further ruling that Tuazon was a
gov’t employee and disqualified from bidding. The PETs had no clear legal right to be protected,
their right to the land being doubtful.
Doctrine: when the complainat’s right or title is doubtful or disputed, there is no clear legal right and
issuance of injunctive relief is not proper.
FACTS
Barbara Plaza was found by the CA in a previous case to be the owner of the land subject of
the case.
o The decision attained finality and Barbara’s successors, the RESPs, have continued
occupying the property.
Barbara’s nephew and his wife, the PETs, filed a complaint for Injuction, Damages, Atty’s
Fees with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction/Temporary Restraining Order against
RESPs and the City Gov’t of Butuan.
o According to them, they acquired the land from Virginia Tuazon, who was the sole
bidder and winner in a tax delinquency sale conducted by the City of Butuan.
RESPs argued that they were not delinquent in paying land taxes and were not notified that
their land had been offered for auction.
o Tuazon was also a gov’t employee and was disqualified to bid in the auction, as per
Local Gov’t Code, Section 89.
Tuazon’s participation being void, ownership could not have been transferred
to the PETs.
PETs also falsified the tax dec by making Silvestre’s father appear as a co-
owner of the auctioned land.
RTC: denied the Writ, and ordered the possession and occupation of the land be returned to
RESPs.
o The auction was irregular as the bidder was disqualified by the LGC.
o The PETs were in bad faith for having falsified the tax dec they redeemed the
property with.
CA: affirmed RTC.
o Tuazon never acquired ownership of the property, being disqualified to bid. No
proprietary rights were transferred to PETs.
o There was no clear and unmistakable right enforceable by injunctive relief.
RATIO
The court agreed that Tuazon had no ownership to confer to the PETs despite their
reimbursement of Tuazon’s purchase expenses.
o PETs were never owners of the property, and failed to establish entitlement to the
writ of preliminary injunction.
To be entitled to an injunctive writ, the right to be protected an the violation against that right
must be shown. A writ of preliminary injunction may be issued only upon clear showing
of an actual existing right to be protected during the pendency of the principal action.
o When the complainat’s right or title is doubtful or disputed, there is no clear legal
right and issuance of injunctive relief is not proper.
The main case was likewise dismissed by the RTC. The question of the issuance of the writ
has become moot and academic.
o A writ is a provisional remedy, auxiliary and subject to the determination of the main
action.
o Upon dimissal of the main action, the question of the non-issuance of the writ
automatically died with it.
DISPOSITIVE
Petition DENIED.