G.R. No. 218703 - People vs. Llamera y Atienza

Petitioners, Spouses Isagani and Diosdada Castro, granted a loan of P250,000 to respondent Spouses Perez (Eduardo and Charito Perez) on November 15, 1996.
To secure the loan, the respondents executed a real estate mortgage covering an unregistered 417-square-meter parcel of land located in San Isidro, Hagonoy, Bulacan, identified by Tax Declaration (TD) No. 01844.

After Spouses Perez failed to settle the loan, petitioners extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage and, as the highest bidder at a public auction, acquired the property on February 4, 1999.
Prior to the foreclosure—or sometime in 1997—Spouses Perez sold the property to respondent Spouses dela Cruz, contrary to the provision of the executed mortgage.
Respondents dela Cruz further executed the cancellation of the original TD No. 01844, causing its replacement with TD No. 01892 in their name on August 15, 1997.

Spouses dela Cruz took possession of the property upon purchase and, during their inspection, found no indications that would alert them to any encumbrances despite allegations of an existing mortgage.
They went on to construct a house on the property, solidifying their physical possession and de facto ownership.

On April 8, 1999, petitioners filed a complaint before the Malolos Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 7, seeking annulment of the deed of sale and the cancellation of TD No. 01892, as well as damages.
During the pendency of the action, petitioners filed an ex-parte motion for a writ of possession over the property, based on the foreclosure, which resulted in a writ of possession dated August 2, 2001. This writ was enforced against respondent Spouses dela Cruz, who were evicted from the property.

In their Answer to the Amended Complaint (filed on December 7, 2002), respondents dela Cruz moved for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to restore them to physical possession of the property.
On October 29, 2004, Branch 7 of the RTC granted the writ, relying on Article 539 of the Civil Code, which protects every possessor’s right.
Petitioners’ subsequent motion for reconsideration of the injunction was denied by the RTC on March 5, 2007, and the Court of Appeals affirmed this denial in a decision dated September 14, 2009.

The trial court’s decision was anchored on Article 539 of the Civil Code, which provides that every possessor must be respected and restored by judicial process if disturbed.
The decision also referred to established jurisprudence and principles governing injunctive relief—specifically, the requirement of extreme urgency to prevent irreparable injury and the importance of safeguarding the status quo ante litem.

Whether the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction in favor of respondent Spouses dela Cruz was proper under Article 539 of the Civil Code.
Whether petitioners’ extrajudicial foreclosure and subsequent ex-parte motion for a writ of possession disturbed the status quo and compromised due process for the affected parties.
Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the injunction, given the conflicting claims on property possession and potential multiplicity of suits.
Whether the respondents’ actual physical possession and the cancellation of the original Tax Declaration provide them with an unequivocal right to be restored to possession.