Case Digest (G.R. No. 202342)
Facts:
Ama Land, Inc. v. Wack Wack Residents' Association, Inc., G.R. No. 202342, July 19, 2017, First Division, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is Ama Land, Inc. (AMALI) and respondent is Wack Wack Residents' Association, Inc. (WWRAI).In the mid-1990s AMALI proposed a commercial and residential condominium project (AMA Tower) at the corner of Epifanio Delos Santos Avenue and Fordham Street in Wack Wack Village, Mandaluyong City. AMALI secured various government permits (building permits, LOC, E.C.C., HLURB clearances) and on March 18, 1996 notified WWRAI of its intention to use a portion of Fordham Street as an access road and staging area; AMALI then set up a temporary field office on Fordham Street, which WWRAI alleged was done even earlier and resisted removal.
On May 8, 1996 AMALI filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 264, San Juan (Pasig City), Civil Case No. 65668, a petition seeking (1) a temporary easement of right of way under Article 656 of the Civil Code to use Fordham Street for construction; and (2) a declaration of permanent easement of right of way under Article 649. AMALI also prayed for a TRO and a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to compel WWRAI to allow use of Fordham Street. In its answer, WWRAI challenged the legality of AMALI’s permits, alleged nuisance, and offered alternative access via EDSA.
The RTC initially granted a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction in favor of AMALI on July 24, 1997, directing WWRAI to allow temporary use of Fordham Street and fixing compensation at P50,000 per month. Construction stalled in 1998 due to financial difficulties and AMALI completed only the basement; in 2002 AMALI obtained corporate rehabilitation and later an Amended Building Permit (No. 08-2011-0048).
When AMALI resumed work, WWRAI in January 2010 filed an urgent motion for TRO and/or preliminary injunction before the RTC. The RTC heard evidence from WWRAI (AMALI did not appear) and on October 28, 2010 denied WWRAI’s application; its denial was reiterated on reconsideration on February 23, 2011. WWRAI then sought certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA issued a TRO on June 10, 2011 and thereafter granted a writ of preliminary injunction on July 28, 2011, enjoining AMALI from constructing pending resolution of the petition; the CA’s June 14, 2012 decision (CA-G.R. SP No. 118994) granted WWRAI’s petition, reversed the RTC’s October 28, 2010 and February 23, 2011 Orders, ordered the RTC to issue injunctive relief pending determination of the petition for permanent easement, and directed WWRAI to amend its petition’s title and averments to disclose its principals and to sue in a representative capacity.
AMALI did not file a motion for reconsideration with the CA but instead filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court. The Court considered, among the records, a DPWH Resol...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is WWRAI guilty of forum shopping?
- Is WWRAI entitled to a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction enjoining AMALI’s construction pending resolution of AMALI’s petition for easements?
- Does the CA Decision amount to a prejudgment of the merits of Civil Case No. 65668 (the original petition for easement of right of way)?
- Did the CA Decision disturb the status quo prevailing before WWRAI’s petition to the CA?
- Is WWRAI...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)