Case Summary (G.R. No. 140228)
Background of the Case
Pedro Medina, the original owner of two parcels of land covered by Transfer Certificates of Title No. 100177 and No. 100178, executed a Contract to Sell and subsequent Deeds of Sale in favor of Greenfield Development Corporation. Following these agreements, the respondent registered the titles under its name by consolidating the parcels at a later date. In 1998, petitioners, claiming to be co-owners of the parcels, filed a lawsuit seeking to annul the titles, reconvey the properties, and sought a preliminary injunction.
Proceedings Below
The trial court granted petitioners a writ of preliminary injunction, allowing them access to the properties, which led to a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition filed by the respondent before the Court of Appeals. The appellate court later nullified the trial court's decision, indicating that it was primarily based on unproven allegations and failed to acknowledge the presumption of validity towards notarized deeds and titles.
Issues on Appeal
In their appeal, petitioners contended that the Court of Appeals committed several errors: relying on respondent's narrative without evidence, upholding the validity of the sales despite prima facie evidence to the contrary, presuming notarized documents to be valid, erroneously determining constructive possession, and ruling that their claim had prescribed.
Examination of the Injunction
The focal point of the case is whether the trial court erred in placing an injunction. The appellate court concluded that for an injunction to be issued, petitioners needed to establish a clear right to the property and a probable violation of that right. The trial court's inclination towards the injunction stemmed from doubts regarding the validity of the transactions that led to the registration of titles under the respondent.
Legal Standards for Injunctive Relief
According to Section 3, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, the grounds for granting a preliminary injunction are articulated, including the necessity for the applicant to show that a clear right exists, that a violation of that right is occurring or is imminent, and that irreparable harm would ensue without the injunction.
Assessment of Ownership Claims
The analysis reveals that petitioners' claims rested on mere assertions of co-ownership, contrasted with respondent's documented ownership through notarized deeds and titles. The presumption of regularity for notarized documents and conclusive evidence of ownership through the Torrens system apply strongly in favor of the respondent.
Discussion on Possession and Ownership
The respondents countered the claims of possession by asserting their rights through the employment of a caretaker for the properties, alongside notarized documents evidencing their ownership. The court acknowledged that mere possession does not establish ownership
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 140228)
Facts and Parties Involved
- Petitioners are the grandchildren of Pedro Medina through two marriages, bearing numerous descendants who constitute the plaintiffs herein.
- Pedro Medina, his brother Alberto, and Alberto’s daughter Nazaria Cruz executed several notarized conveyance documents in favor of respondent Greenfield Development Corporation starting in 1962, covering parcels of land in Muntinlupa City.
- These documents include a Contract to Sell (June 5, 1962), a Deed of Sale (June 27, 1962), and a Deed of Absolute Sale with Mortgage (September 4, 1964).
- Respondent registered titles to two parcels of land (TCT Nos. 100578 and 133444), later consolidated and further registered under new titles in 1995.
- Petitioners filed Civil Case No. 98-233 seeking annulment of titles and deeds, reconveyance, damages, and injunctive relief, alleging ownership and co-ownership rights.
- The heirs of Nazaria Cruz were also included as unwilling co-plaintiffs in the complaint.
Nature of the Dispute
- Petitioners claim ownership as co-owners of the properties despite the titles being registered in the names of Pedro, Alberto, and other Medina family members.
- They argue that the deeds of sale are simulated and that the signatures on these documents are forged.
- Petitioners continued possession of the land through their caretaker, Santos Arevalo, despite title registration in respondent’s name.
- Respondent denies ownership disputes, asserting valid titles from duly executed and notarized documents by prior owners.
- Respondent contested petitioners’ claim by asserting that Santos Arevalo was employed by respondent, not petitioners.
Procedural History
- The trial court granted petitioners’ motion for a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining respondent and its agents from prohibiting petitioners’ access or enjoyment of the property, upon posting bond.
- Respondent sought certiorari with the Court of Appeals to nullify the injunction.
- The Court of Appeals nullified the trial court’s issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction, finding lack of substantial evidence to support the injunction and giving weight to the presumption of validity of respondent’s notarized conveyance documents and Torrens titles.
- Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via petition for review on certiorari, contesting the Court of Appeals’ resolution.
Issue Presented
- The sole issue before the Supreme Court is whether the trial court erred in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction in favor of petitioners.