G.R. No. L-33952 - Ortigas and Co., Ltd. Partnership vs. Ruiz

Petitioner, Ortigas & Company, Limited Partnership, is the duly registered owner of several adjacent parcels of land in Ugong Sur, Pasig, Rizal, consolidated under TCT No. 227758.
The property, comprising approximately 162 hectares, is part of the Mandaluyon Estate (alternatively known as Hacienda de Mandaloya, Hacienda de Mandaloyen, etc.) and has been in continuous possession (through its predecessor Provincia del Santisima Nombre de Jesus de Agustinos Calzados) since 1862, a fact confirmed in Compania Agricola de Ultramar v. Marcos Domingo, et al.

In 1967, Civil Case No. 7-M (10339) was initiated against petitioner by Pedro del Rosario and others as a class suit, seeking a declaration that petitioner’s titles were null and void due to alleged irregularities in the land registration process (lack of publication and fraud in registering agricultural land parcels).
The lower court issued an ex-parte restraining order that hindered petitioner from erecting fences, constructing roads, or carrying out any improvements on the land.

After the denial of petitioner’s motion for a new trial in Civil Case No. 7-M (10339), petitioner sought certiorari from the Court of Appeals, which enjoined further proceedings by the lower court.
On August 10, 1971, a similar complaint was filed by Inocencio Bernardo and co-claimants in Civil Case No. 678-M (15043), mirroring the issues of the former suit and again challenging the titles and petitioner's actions on the disputed land.

The respondent court issued its restraining order on August 13, 1971, directing petitioner not to fence or improve the land and restraining any exercise of ownership rights until further orders.
Petitioner filed multiple motions, including a motion for new trial on grounds of newly discovered evidence, a motion to set aside the restraining order, and urgent manifestations seeking speedy resolution.
Respondents also moved to dismiss petitioner's certiorari petition as premature and lacking merit, and an omnibus motion was filed by petitioner requesting the dropping of most plaintiffs from the class suit, leaving only one principal plaintiff, Inocencio Bernardo.

The Supreme Court, in its resolution on October 12, 1971, directed the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction upon the filing of a bond of P10,000.00.
This writ enjoined the respondent judge from enforcing the lower court’s restraining order and from proceeding with Civil Case No. 678-M (15043) until further orders.
The factual record also highlights disputes regarding the proper parties to the suit, the limits of the restraining order (which affected almost 200 hectares), and the contention that a class suit was improperly constituted given the differing interests of the parties involved.

Whether the respondent court committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in issuing its restraining order on August 13, 1971.

Whether the ex-parte restraining order was proper given the absence of an opportunity for all parties to be heard and the lack of demonstrated urgency.
Whether the preliminary injunction issued by the Supreme Court appropriately addressed the violation of petitioner’s right to possess and exercise ownership over the disputed land.

Whether the imposition of a class suit, as structured in Civil Case No. 678-M (15043), was appropriate given that each party’s interest in the land was distinct rather than common.
Whether only the principal plaintiff, Inocencio Bernardo, should remain, with the other alleged plaintiffs being dropped pursuant to the rules governing class actions.

Whether petitioner’s established title and long-standing continuous possession (since 1862) suffice to create a “clear positive right” warranting the relief sought.