G.R. No. L-14925 - Vda. de De la Cruz vs. Torres

Plaintiff Rosalinda Z. Tiongco, owner in fee simple and in actual and material possession of Lot No. 1856 of the Sta. Rosa Cadastre, filed a complaint on October 22, 1958, with the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija (Civil Case No. 3016).
The complaint detailed that she had made improvements on the land and had palay (rice) ready for harvest.
It was alleged that on October 19, 1958, defendant Marta Vda. de De la Cruz, accompanied by her children and several armed men, unlawfully entered the land.
During the entry, the defendant’s group destroyed the plaintiff’s barbed wire fences and, once inside, demolished the house of the plaintiff’s tenant.
The defendant further threatened that they would return to forcibly harvest the palay, thereby committing acts of dispossession and destruction that could lead to irreparable damage.

Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the defendant and her agents from entering the property and harvesting the palay, stressing the urgency due to impending irreparable injury and damage.
On November 5, 1958, the lower court issued a writ of preliminary injunction after procedural hearings, which included discussions and requests by the counsels.

Atty. Alfonso G. Espinosa, representing the defendant, initially requested additional time to submit opposition.
During subsequent hearings on November 4, 1958, both parties agreed to an amicable settlement regarding the injunction.
The defendant indicated her willingness to submit a counterbond to preserve her possession and the palay, with the understanding that filing such a bond might eventually lead to the lifting of the injunction.

The court’s written order mandated that the defendant, her children, and any person acting on her behalf were prohibited from entering Lot No. 1856 or harvesting the palay until further order.
The order also provided that the defendant could petition to have the injunction lifted by filing a counterbond or upon showing justifiable cause.
Subsequently, the defendant filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus challenging the propriety of the preliminary injunction.

Whether a preliminary injunction, being a provisional remedy, may stand alone or if it must always be ancillary to the main action.
Whether the preliminary injunction issued in this case was appropriate under the rules governing such provisional remedies.

The sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint to justify the issuance of the provisional writ.
Whether the alleged acts of dispossession, destruction, and threat of further harm warranted immediate court intervention.

Whether the defendant’s claim that she was not served a copy of the plaintiff’s bond constitutes a reversible error.
Whether the defendant’s offer to file a counterbond is sufficient to quash or dissolve the preliminary injunction.
The impact of the parties’ manifestations during the hearings on the propriety of issuing or dissolving the writ.