G.R. No. 126859 - Al-Ghoul vs. Court of Appeals

The petitioners are the heirs of Melencio Yu and Talinanap Matualaga (Leonora, Eduardo, Virgilio, Vilma, Imelda, Cynthia, and Nancy Yu), represented by Leonora, Virgilio, and Vilma.
Respondents include the Honorable Court of Appeals (CA), its personnel Rosemarie D. Anacan-Dizon and Marion C. Mirabueno, and the heirs of Concepcion Non Andres (Sergio, Jr., Sofronio, and Gracelda Andres), represented by Gracelda N. Andres.
The dispute centers on Lot No. 2, Psu-135740-Amd, located in Sogod, Barangay Apopong, General Santos City, South Cotabato.

Melencio Yu and Talinanap Matualaga filed a case against John Z. Sycip (later substituted by his heirs) for the nullity of documents and recovery of possession of the subject lot, praying for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction and damages.
The trial court initially dismissed on the ground of prescription, but the CA reversed and remanded the case for trial.
On April 22, 1981, the Court of First Instance declared Melencio Yu and his spouse as registered and absolute owners, ordering the defendants to deliver possession and pay attorney’s fees.
The case was elevated to the Supreme Court which affirmed the decision and made it final and executory.

During the pendency of Civil Case No. 1291, squatters called Yard Urban Homeowners Association, Inc. (YUHAI) entered the lot.
The trial court issued writ of execution and order of demolition; YUHAI filed a complaint for injunction with damages, docketed as Civil Case No. 4647 before RTC Branch 22.
Both trial court and CA ruled in favor of the petitioners, affirming the proceedings to demolish squatters’ improvements.

RTC Branch 23 issued a Special Order commanding the demolition of improvements by the heirs of John Z. Sycip and YUHAI on the subject property in favor of Yu and Matualaga heirs.
A notice to vacate the premises was also issued to the heirs of Sycip, YUHAI members, and other adverse claimants.

Private respondents (heirs of Concepcion Non Andres) filed a special appearance and urgent pleadings to enjoin the enforcement of the demolition order regarding their improvements.
They also filed a complaint for quieting of title, specific performance, reconveyance and damages in Civil Case No. 7066 (RTC Branch 22), which is still pending trial.
YUHAI also filed a complaint for quieting of title and damages in Special Civil Case No. 562 (RTC Branch 22), but their motions for TRO and WPI were denied.
Following the continued orders to implement demolition, YUHAI filed a certiorari petition before the CA which was eventually dismissed on grounds of res judicata, and their subsequent petition before the Supreme Court was denied.

Petitioners filed a Motion to Resume and Complete Demolition on December 27, 2006.
The trial court (RTC Branch 36) granted the motion on October 9, 2007, and the Provincial Sheriff proceeded accordingly.
Private respondents asserted that they were not parties in Civil Cases Nos. 1291 and 4647, hence should be excluded from demolition enforcement. Their motion was denied.

Private respondents filed a certiorari petition before the CA against the October 9, 2007 Order, praying for TRO, WPI, and WPMI.
The CA initially issued a TRO on December 14, 2007 but later vacated it on February 13, 2008 due to mootness after demolition was completed.
Private respondents filed a motion for reconsideration and urgent prayer for the issuance of preliminary mandatory injunction, which the CA granted on April 3, 2008, issuing the writ the same day.

The petitioners filed the instant Rule 65 certiorari petition before the Supreme Court to set aside the CA Order and writ of preliminary mandatory injunction dated April 3, 2008.
The petitioners argued irregularities such as the issuance of the writ without requiring the posting of the bond mandated by the Rules of Court, and the dubious basis of the private respondents’ claim of ownership and possession.

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in granting the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction without requiring the posting of the bond as mandated by the Rules of Court.
Whether the private respondents have a clear legal right to the possession of Lot No. 2, Psu-135740-Amd such that a preliminary mandatory injunction is proper.
Whether a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction may be used to oust a party from possession when ownership and possession rights are disputed and not clearly established.
Whether the damages alleged by private respondents are grave and irreparable to warrant issuance of the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction.