Title
Supreme Court
Evy Construction and Development Corp. vs. Valiant Roll Forming Sales Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 207938
Decision Date
Oct 11, 2017
Evy Construction sought a TRO to prevent encumbrance annotations on its property title, but courts denied relief, citing lack of urgency and due process compliance.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 207938)

Procedural History in the Trial Court

Evy Construction filed a complaint for quieting of title, removal of cloud, annulment of execution sale and certificate of sale, and damages, accompanied by an application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction. In a summary hearing on November 9, 2009, the RTC denied the TRO and preliminary injunction for lack of legal basis, which denial was affirmed on motion for reconsideration.

Court of Appeals’ Ruling

On certiorari, the Court of Appeals found no grave abuse of discretion in the RTC’s denial. It held that Evy Construction failed to establish both its actual and existing right and the urgency of a writ to prevent grave and irreparable injury. The CA observed that petitioner’s arguments went to the merits of its complaint and noted the availability of relief through damages or the indemnity bond posted by Valiant.

Issues on Certiorari

  1. Whether Evy Construction was denied due process when its application for preliminary injunction was resolved in the same proceeding as its TRO application.
  2. Whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion in denying injunctive relief.

Due Process and Hearing Requirements

Under Rule 58, a TRO may be issued ex parte for up to 72 hours or for 20 days upon showing of extreme urgency, with a summary hearing on notice for extension. A preliminary injunction, however, may be denied without a separate hearing following the summary TRO hearing. Here, Evy Construction’s counsel presented legal arguments and conceded that no further witness testimony was necessary. The RTC’s submission of the application for resolution did not violate due process, as the petitioner had a full opportunity to be heard.

Requisites for Preliminary Injunction

A writ of preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy and requires proof that (a) the applicant is entitled to the relief sought; (b) the act complained of would work injustice during litigation; and (c) there is a probable violation of substantive rights that would render the final judgment ineffectual. The applicant must establish an actual and existing right and urgent necessity to prevent grave and irreparable injury.

Analysis of Petitioner’s Rights and Encumbrances

Evy Construction claimed the right to full use and possession as registered owner under the Torrens system. However, at the time of the prior annotations, title was still vested in Ang and Uyan. Under established jurisprudence, duly annotated attachments on a Torrens title are superior to unregistered sales and even retroactively affect subsequent registrations. Determination of the validity, priority, and any knowledge by respondent of the sale involves factual issues reserved for the main action, making injunctive relief a prejudgment of the case.

Irreparable Injury and Business Reputation

Petitioner asserted irreparable harm to its business reputation and investor confidence due to the annotations and sale. While loss of goodwill may co

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.

About Privacy Terms