Title
Supreme Court
Prosperity Credit Resources, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 114170
Decision Date
Jan 15, 1999
PCRI and MFI disputed a right of way under a 1987 agreement; SC ruled PCRI lacked clear right to excavate for water pipes, remanding for trial.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 114170)

Overview of the Case

The case arose from a loan agreement between the petitioner, Prosperity Credit Resources, Inc., and the private respondent, Metropolitan Fabrics, Inc., wherein the latter mortgaged seven parcels of land to secure a loan amounting to P10.5 million. Following a default in the loan payment, the petitioner foreclosed on the mortgage and subsequently acquired the property through public bidding.

Background of the Dispute

On September 18, 1987, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Undertaking that allowed the private respondent to redeem three of the mortgaged lots while granting the petitioner a right of way over a private road necessary for accessing their remaining property. Subsequent disputes related to the access and use of this road prompted the petitioner to seek a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction based on alleged violations of this agreement.

Injunctive Proceedings

Petitioner filed an injunctive suit in the Regional Trial Court in November 1991, alleging that the private respondent obstructed its access to the road and refused permission for necessary construction work for water pipe installation. The trial court initially granted a preliminary injunction, contingent on petitioner posting a bond, allowing access to the road for the proposed work.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The private respondent contested the trial court's decision by filing for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The appellate court found that the lower court had overstepped by issuing the injunction, as it had failed to properly interpret the terms of the Memorandum of Undertaking. It determined that the petitioner did not have a clear legal right to the excavations needed for the installation of water pipes.

Legal Standards for Preliminary Mandatory Injunctions

According to the jurisprudence set forth in Pelejo v. Court of Appeals, to justify the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, the petitioner must establish a clear legal right that has been violated, material and substantial invasion of that right, and the urgent necessity of the writ to prevent serious damage. The appellate court held that the right claimed by the petitioner was not “clear and unmistakable,” as the term “passage” in the memorandum did not clearly encompass installation rights.

Analysis of the Memorandum of Undertaking

The trial court interpreted the terms of the Memorandum of Undertaking as granting the petitioner extensive rights to use the road for the installation of utilities. However, the Court of Appeals noted that such an interpretation required a comprehensive evaluation of the mutual intent of the parties, which could only be determined duri

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.