Plaza v.

Lustiva 292
GR No. 172909, 05 March 2014, Brion, J.

Digested by Joseph Pajarillo • Law 125 – Civil Procedure

Petitioners: Spouses Silvestre Plaza and Elena Plaza

Respondents: Guillermo Lustiva et al.
Nature of the case: Petition for Review under Rule 45

PETs claim that the subject land belongs to them, as they had acquired the land from a certain
Tuazon, who was the winner in a public auction of the land. The Court ruled that the PETs had
falsified the tax declaration which RESPs based their claim upon, further ruling that Tuazon was a
gov’t employee and disqualified from bidding. The PETs had no clear legal right to be protected,
their right to the land being doubtful.

Doctrine: when the complainat’s right or title is doubtful or disputed, there is no clear legal right and
issuance of injunctive relief is not proper.

FACTS

 Barbara Plaza was found by the CA in a previous case to be the owner of the land subject of
the case.
o The decision attained finality and Barbara’s successors, the RESPs, have continued
occupying the property.
 Barbara’s nephew and his wife, the PETs, filed a complaint for Injuction, Damages, Atty’s
Fees with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction/Temporary Restraining Order against
RESPs and the City Gov’t of Butuan.
o According to them, they acquired the land from Virginia Tuazon, who was the sole
bidder and winner in a tax delinquency sale conducted by the City of Butuan.
 RESPs argued that they were not delinquent in paying land taxes and were not notified that
their land had been offered for auction.
o Tuazon was also a gov’t employee and was disqualified to bid in the auction, as per
Local Gov’t Code, Section 89.
 Tuazon’s participation being void, ownership could not have been transferred
to the PETs.
 PETs also falsified the tax dec by making Silvestre’s father appear as a co-
owner of the auctioned land.
 RTC: denied the Writ, and ordered the possession and occupation of the land be returned to
RESPs.
 o The auction was irregular as the bidder was disqualified by the LGC.
o The PETs were in bad faith for having falsified the tax dec they redeemed the
property with.
 CA: affirmed RTC.
o Tuazon never acquired ownership of the property, being disqualified to bid. No
proprietary rights were transferred to PETs.
o There was no clear and unmistakable right enforceable by injunctive relief.

ISSUES & HOLDING

 Was there a right to be protected by the writ? No.

RATIO

 The court agreed that Tuazon had no ownership to confer to the PETs despite their
reimbursement of Tuazon’s purchase expenses.
o PETs were never owners of the property, and failed to establish entitlement to the
writ of preliminary injunction.
 To be entitled to an injunctive writ, the right to be protected an the violation against that right
must be shown. A writ of preliminary injunction may be issued only upon clear showing
of an actual existing right to be protected during the pendency of the principal action.
o When the complainat’s right or title is doubtful or disputed, there is no clear legal
right and issuance of injunctive relief is not proper.
 The main case was likewise dismissed by the RTC. The question of the issuance of the writ
has become moot and academic.
o A writ is a provisional remedy, auxiliary and subject to the determination of the main
action.
o Upon dimissal of the main action, the question of the non-issuance of the writ
automatically died with it.

DISPOSITIVE
Petition DENIED.