Facts:

This case involves the petitioner, Armando D. Amfil, and the respondents, including The Honorable Judge Corazon Juliano-Agrava, Antonio M. Perez, and numerous other parties, with the ruling being delivered on October 13, 1967. The dispute revolves around properties covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 24927 and 24928 located in the City of Manila. Armando D. Amfil filed a petition for certiorari on March 31, 1967, seeking a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the enforcement of a specific order, marked as Annex D, associated with the properties in question during the ongoing litigation. The Supreme Court initially granted this writ, contingent upon Amfil posting a bond of P1,000.00. However, a subsequent motion was filed by Antonio M. Perez to lift the injunction and allow him to reclaim the properties, which had been awarded to him through a compromise agreement appr

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Petitioner Armando D. Amfil filed a petition for certiorari on March 31, 1967, seeking a writ of preliminary injunction.
• The injunction was requested to temporarily restrain respondents from enforcing or executing the order identified as Annex D attached to the petition.

Granting of the Preliminary Injunction

• The petition was granted by the Court upon the filing of a P1,000.00 bond by the petitioner.
• The writ of preliminary injunction was issued pending further resolution of the case.

Motion to Lift the Injunction

• Respondent Antonio M. Perez filed a motion requesting that the preliminary injunction be lifted with respect to him.
• The motion further prayed that the petitioner be ordered to deliver to him the properties covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 24927 and 24928 of the City of Manila.
• These properties had been previously awarded to respondent Perez based on a compromise agreement entered between the parties in G.R. No. L-19711.
• The compromise agreement had been approved by the Court on November 17, 1966.

Failure to Respond

• A resolution issued on August 30, 1967 by the Court directed the petitioner to comment, within five days, on the motion filed by respondent Perez.
• The record indicates that the petitioner failed to submit any comments within the prescribed period.

Current Status of the Certificates and Order

• It was a fact before the Court that the compromise agreement had been approved and the properties were awarded to respondent Perez.
• Despite the award, the certificates of title for the properties remained in the possession of the petitioner.
• The Court consequently issued an order directing that the petitioner deliver the certificates to respondent Perez.
• This order is subject to the filing and approval of a bond in the sum of P25,000.00.
• The purpose of the bond is to secure against potential damages that the petitioner might claim for attorneys' fees related to the lifting of the injunction.

Issue:

• Whether the petitioner’s retention of the certificates of title for the properties, despite the approved compromise agreement awarding them to respondent Perez, is tenable.
• Whether the petitioner’s failure to comment on the motion for lifting the preliminary injunction justifies the Court’s issuance of the order directing the delivery of the certificates.
• Whether the condition of filing a P25,000.00 bond is appropriate to secure any potential damages related to the petitioner’s claim for attorneys' fees.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)