Case Digest (G.R. No. 215807)
Facts:
Rosario E. Cahambing v. Victor Espinosa and Juana Ang, G.R. No. 215807, January 25, 2017, Supreme Court Second Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Rosario E. Cahambing and private respondent Victor Espinosa are children of the deceased spouses Librado and Brigida Espinosa, whose respective wills (duly probated) originally bequeathed shares in Lot 354 to Victor. Brigida later revoked her will and purportedly gave one-half of Lot 354 to petitioner. After Librado's death, Brigida and Victor executed an extrajudicial partition that subdivided Lot 354 into Lot 354‑A (503.5 sq. m., adjudicated to Brigida) and Lot 354‑B (837.5 sq. m., adjudicated to Victor), and Victor obtained a certificate of title for his portion.
A commercial building (the Espinosa Building) stood on Lot 354 and at the time of suit had twelve lessees, four of whom paid rent to petitioner; among the other tenants was Jhanel's Pharmacy, a lessee claimed by Victor. Petitioner filed Civil Case No. R‑2912 for annulment of the extrajudicial partition against Victor and his representative Juana Ang, asserting she was excluded from the partition and challenging Victor’s title and possession. During a pre‑trial conference the court, through the Clerk of Court acting as commissioner, issued a status quo order dated April 16, 1998 directing maintenance of the existing situation.
On March 3, 2009 Victor sought a writ of preliminary injunction (with prayer for a TRO) alleging that petitioner violated the status quo by letting her sons occupy the space rented by Jhanel's Pharmacy and by constructing a connecting door, thereby disturbing Victor's possession and his subsisting lease with the pharmacy. The RTC granted a TRO on March 6, 2009 and on September 22, 2009 issued an order granting the writ of preliminary injunction conditioned on Victor’s filing of an injunction bond of P50,000; the RTC enjoined petitioner and those claiming under her from disturbing Victor’s possession of the leased premises or the status quo ante until final decision.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC in a Resolution dated February 25, 2010. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC because private respondents themselves had allegedly violated the status quo and because the requisites for injunctive relief were absent. The CA, in a Decision dated November 29, 2013, dismissed petitioner’s Rule 65 petition and upheld the RTC orders; it denie...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does petitioner’s Rule 45 petition present only questions of law, or are the CA’s factual findings binding and not reviewable under Rule 45?
- Did respondents “sully their hands” by wresting control of leased premises so as to bar their application for a writ of preliminary injunction (clean‑hands defense)?
- Were the statutory and jurisprudential requisites for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction absent such that the RTC committed grave ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)