Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-11553 October 8, 1917
PEDRO N. LIONGSON, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ALFREDO MARTINEZ, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
Conrado R. Gwekoh for appellants.
Pedro N. Liongson in his own behalf.
JOHNSON, J.:
The purpose of this action was to obtain a perpetual injunction against the defendants to prohibit them from entering, working upon, possessing and destroying certain plants and other improvements upon three parcels or pieces of land particularly described in paragraph 2 of the complaint, as well as to prohibit said defendants from disturbing and molesting the plaintiff, his agents and representatives, in their possession of said parcels of land and for damages.
The complaint was presented in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Tarlac on the 21st day of August, 1914. On the same day an order was issued requiring the defendants to appear and to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be granted. On the 27th day of August, 1914, the defendants appeared in said cause; and on the 5th day of September, 1914, they presented a demurrer to the complaint, which was later overruled on the 12th day of September, 1914. During the pendency of the demurrer, or on the 8th day of September, 1914, the Hon. Vicente Nepomuceno issued the injunction prayed for, ordering the defendants to desist and abstain from entering, working upon, or occupying or disturbing or molesting the plaintiff in any way whatever in his right in two of said parcels of land described in the complaint. On the 10th day of September, 1914, the defendant Alfredo Martinez presented a motion to dissolve the injunction theretofore granted, upon the ground that the crops planted upon said lands had been planted by himself and his tenants, and that he had occupied the lands in question for more than twenty years, and that there was another action pending between him and the plaintiff in the present action, Pedro Liongson, (Case No. 638) in which the title to the lands in question was presented to the court for solution. At the time of the presentation of motion the defendants presented a bond to the court, offering to pay all damages, etc., in the sum of P3,000. On the 14th day of October, 1914, the plaintiff presented his opposition to said motion to dissolve, alleging that he was the owner of the parcels of land in question. On the 16th day of September, 1914, said motion to dissolve was denied; and on the 28th day of September, 1914, the defendant duly answered the original petition in which he alleged that he was the sole and separate owner of the parcels of land described in the complaint. On the 14th day of November, 1914, the plaintiff presented a motion, alleging that some of the defendants had violated the order of injunction, and asked that they be cited to appear to show cause why they should not be punished. On the 16th day of November, 1914, the Hon. Vicente Nepomuceno issued an order requiring Luis Soliman, Agustin Beltran and Segunda Perez to appear before the justice of the peace of the municipality of Tarlac to show cause why they should be punished for a violation of said injunction. On the 21st day of November, 1914, said defendants were duly arrested by an order issued by the justice of the peace of the municipality of Tarlac. Later, other orders for the arrest of some of the defendants for a violation of said injunction were issued.
Later, and before the decision was rendered upon the questions presented by the petition and answer, the Hon. Vicente Nepomuceno, judge, on the 4th day of March, 1915, entered an order punishing Luis Soliman, Agustin Beltran, Segunda Perez, Carlos Pacat and Alfredo Martinez with a fine and subsidiary imprisonment, and ordering and requiring the said Alfredo Martinez to deliver to Pedro N. Liongson 400 cavanes of palay, or its price valued at P800. The penalty imposed upon Luis Soliman, Agustin Beltran and Segunda Perez is to pay a fine of P50 and to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay or to deliver to Pedro N. Liongson 40 cavanes of palay, or its equivalent in money of P80. A second penalty was imposed upon the said Luis Soliman of a fine of P100; and upon Carlos Pacat there was imposed the fine of P50 and, in case of insolvency, to suffer subsidiary imprisonment, and further to deliver to Pedro N. Liongson 35 cavanes of palay or to pay its equivalent in the sum of P70. From that sentence imposed for contempt each of the defendants appealed.
It will be remembered, as above indicated, that the various defendants were punished for the crime of contempt before the decision was rendered upon the question presented by the petition and answer. The decision upon the merits was not rendered until the 5th day of March, 1915.
From the foregoing facts it clearly appears (a) that the plaintiff in the present action, by means of an injunction, attempted to try the title to the parcels of land in question, and (b) that he had a number of the defendants punished for contempt with fine and subsidiary imprisonment, and also an order to compel them to return to him the crops reaped from the land in question, even before the question of the ownership of the lands involved had been passed upon by the lower court. The plaintiff, as well as the lower court, has evidently overlooked the former decisions of this Court upon the question of the right to try title to real estate in proceedings for an injunction. The Court had, as early as March, 1909, in the case of Devesa vs. Arbes (13 Phil. Rep., 273), decided that, "an injunction should not be granted to take property out of the possession and control of one party and to place it in the hands of another whose title has not clearly been established by law."
This decision was based upon the principle that "an other adequate, summary and speedy remedy" exists for almost every case where one person is illegally possessing the lands of another. The same principle has been heretofore announced in several other decisions. (Palafox vs. Madamba, 19 Phil. Rep., 444; Evangelista vs. Pedrenos, 27 Phil. Rep., 648; Gilchrist vs. Cuddy, 29 Phil. Rep., 542.)
The writ of injunction is one of the special remedies provided by the Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 190). It should not be issued except upon condition that no other ordinary, speedy and adequate remedy is available to avoid or repair the damage done, or which may be done by a new violation of plaintiff's rights. (Palafox vs. Madamba, supra; Gilchrist vs. Cuddy, supra.) 1awphil.net
The injunction for the issuance of which provision is made in the Code of Civil Procedure, while it resembles the interdictal actions of the Spanish procedural law in some respects, is wholly distinct therefrom and, as a rule, the circumstances under which, in accordance with the Spanish law, "interdictos de adquirir, de retener, de recobrar, o de despojo" were properly issued, would not justify nor sustain the issuance of an injunction as defined in said Code (Act No. 190). (Devesa vs. Arbes, supra.) The writ of injunction may be issued to restrain acts of trespass and the illegal interference with the possession of land, under certain conditions; but the cases are very few and very rare when said remedy should be issued ex parte and before the defendant is given a hearing. An injunction should never issue when an action for damages would adequately compensate the injuries caused. The very foundation of the jurisdiction to use the writ of injunction rests in the fact that the damages caused are irreparable and that damages would not adequately compensate. There are circumstances under which the writ of injunction may be issued to prevent a multiplicity of suits, but such cases are also rare. (Western Union Telegraph Co. vs. Judkins, 75 Ala., 428; Poughkeepsie Gas Co. vs. Citizens' Gas Co., 89 N. Y., 493.)
An injunction to prevent trespass and the illegal interference with the possession of land should not be granted until the ownership and the right to possession on the part of the plaintiff has been settled in a proper proceeding brought for that purpose. (Maloon vs. White, 57 N. H., 152; Greasap vs. Kemble, 26 W. Va., 603.)
As has been said by all the courts upon the question of the right to a remedy by injunction, the same should never be issued where there exists another remedy which is ample and complete. (Southworth vs. Smith, 27 Conn., 354; Great Hive etc. vs. Supreme Hive etc., 129 Mich., 324; Hart vs. Leonard, 42 N. J. Eq., 416.)
Neither should the writ of injunction be issued to prohibit an interference with rights in real property until the plaintiff has fully established his title or right by a proper action brought for that purpose. A writ of injunction granted in such a case should be immediately dissolved when the defendant sets up or presents the defense that he is the sole and separate owner of the property in question. (22 Cyc., 818; Whanton vs. Hannon, 115 Ala., 518; Koehler & Co. vs. Brady, 144 N. Y., 135; Irwin vs. Dixon, 9 How. [U. S.], 10; White vs. Williamson, 92 Ga., 443.)
An examination of the complaint presented in the present case fails to show a single allegation of fact concerning the alleged damages caused or which might be caused by the defendant to the land in question, which might not be adequately measured and ascertained in an action brought for that purpose.
Considering the whole record, and considering that questions of title to real estate cannot be tried in an action for injunction, the judgment and orders issued by the lower court herein, including all of the orders and judgments for contempt, are hereby revoked. And it is hereby ordered and decreed that the record be returned to the lower court, and that a judgment be there entered, revoking and annulling all of the orders theretofore made, and with such further proceedings as the parties may deem it advisable to have before the final disposition of the case in accordance with section 170 of Act No. 190, for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of damages occasioned to the defendants, or any of them, be virtue of the illegal issuance of the said injunction; and without any finding as to costs in this instance. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Carson, Araullo, Street and Malcolm, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
