Miguel Ramonkito S.

Mendoza
Provisional Remedies and Special Civil Actions
September 2013

Preliminary Injunction
The Court in the case of Heirs of Melencio Yu and Talinanap Matualaga vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 182371, September 4, 2013 ruled that:

To be sure, an Order granting a preliminary injunction, whether mandatory or

prohibitory, does not automatically entitle the applicant-movant to an immediate
enforcement. Posting of a bond is a condition sinequa non for the issuance of a
corresponding writ.
In issuing the subject writ, respondent CA certainly ignored the fundamental rule in Our
jurisdiction that a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction cannot be used to oust a party
from his possession of a property and to put in his place another party whose right has
not been clearly established.

In this case, there is doubt on private respondents entitlement to a preliminary

mandatory injunction since the evidence presented before the respondent CA in support
thereof appears to be weak and inconclusive, and the alleged right sought to be
protected is vehemently disputed. The documentary evidence presented by private
respondents does not suffice to prove their ownership and possession of the contested
lot. Notably, both the Quitclaim Deed allegedly executed on April 16, 1957 by the
spouses Melencio Yu and Talinanap Matualaga in favor of Alfonso Aguinaldo Non and
the Transfer of Free Patent Rights allegedly executed on May 28, 1957 by Melencio Yu
in favor of Concepcion Non Andres were among those documents already declared null
and void by the trial court in Civil Case No.1291 on the grounds that: (a) the spouses
never received any consideration for said conveyances; (b) the documents were
falsified; (c) the instruments were not approved by the Provincial Governor or his dulyauthorized representative pursuant to Sections 145 and 146 of the Revised
Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu; (d) all transactions were restricted by the
law governing free patent; and (e) Lot No. 2, Psu-135740-Amd is a paraphernal
property of Talinanap Matualaga and was sold without her consent

Finally, granting that there is strong evidence to prove private respondents ownership
and possession of the disputed lot, still, they are not entitled to the grant of preliminary
mandatory injunction. As the damages alleged by them can be quantified, it cannot be
considered as "grave and irreparable injury" as understood in law.
As previously held in Golding v. Balatbat , the writ of injunction
should never issue when an action for damages would adequately compensate the
injuries caused. The very foundation of the jurisdiction to issue the writ rests in the
probability of irreparable injury, the inadequacy of pecuniary compensation, and the
prevention of the multiplicity of suits, and where facts are not shown to bring the case
within these conditions, the relief of injunction should be refused.

Expropriation
The Court in Republic of the Philippines vs. BPI, G.R. No. 203039, September 11,
2013 ruled that:
No actual taking of the building is necessary to grant consequential damages.
Consequential damages are awarded if as a result of the expropriation, the remaining
property of the owner suffers from an impairment or decrease in value. The rules on
expropriation clearly provide a legal basis for the award of consequential damages.
Section 6 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court provides:
x x x The commissioners shall assess the consequential damages to the property not
taken and deduct from such consequential damages the consequential benefits to be
derived by the owner from the public use or public purpose of the property taken, the
operation of its franchise by the corporation or the carrying on of the business of the
corporation or person taking the property. But in no case shall the consequential
benefits assessed exceed the consequential damages assessed, or the owner be
deprived of the actual value of his property so taken.

Declaratory Relief
The Court in Republic of the Philippines vs. Herminio Harry Roque , G.R. No.
204603, September 24, 2013 ruled that:
Case law states that the following are the requisites for an action for declaratory relief:

first , the subject matter of the controversy must be a deed, will, contract or other written
instrument, statute, executive order or regulation, or ordinance; second , the terms of
said documents and the validity thereof are doubtful and require judicial construction;
third , there must have been no breach of the documents in question; fourth , there must
be an actual justiciable controversy or the "ripening seeds" of one between persons
whose interests are adverse; fifth , the issue must be ripe for judicial determination; and
sixth , adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms of action or
proceeding.

Based on a judicious review of the records, the Court observes that while the first,
second, and third requirements appear to exist in this case, the fourth, fifth, and sixth
requirements, however, remain wanting.

As to the fourth requisite, there is serious doubt that an actual justiciable controversy or
the "ripening seeds" of one exists in this case.

Pertinently, a justiciable controversy refers to an existing case or controversy that is

appropriate or ripe for judicial determination, not one that is conjectural or merely
anticipatory. Corollary thereto, by "ripening seeds" it is meant, not that sufficient accrued
facts may be dispensed with, but that a dispute may be tried at its inception before it
has accumulated the asperity, distemper, animosity, passion, and violence of a full
blown battle that looms ahead. The concept describes a state of facts indicating
imminent and inevitable litigation provided that the issue is not settled and stabilized by
tranquilizing declaration
As to the fifth requisite for an action for declaratory relief, neither can it be inferred that
the controversy at hand is ripe for adjudication since the possibility of abuse, based on
the above-discussed allegations in private respondents petition, remain highlyspeculative and merely theorized. It is well-settled that a question is ripe for adjudication
when the act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the individual
challenging it. This private respondents failed to demonstrate in the case at bar.

Finally, as regards the sixth requisite, the Court finds it irrelevant to proceed with a
discussion on the availability of adequate reliefs since no impending threat or injury to
the private respondents exists in the first place.