1.

2.
[No.6434.February6,1912.]
LUCAS REYES, SANTOS NORUA, and JUAN ACEVEROS
ROQUE, plaintiffs and appellants, vs. MGR. JEREMIAH J.
HARTY,ArchbishopofManila,defendantandappellee.
INJUNCTION ACTS FULLY PERFORMED CAN NOT BE
RESTRAINED.An action for a permanent restraining injunction
should be dismissed when it appears upon the trial that the acts, to
restrainwhichtheactionwasbegun,havebeenfullyexecuted.
PLEADING AND PRACTICE MOTION TO FILE AMENDED
COMPLAINT ABANDONMENT OF MOTION.Where after
the trial the plaintiff moves to file an amended complaint and the
motionisdenied,
423
VOL.21,FEBRUARY6,1912. 423
Reyesvs.Harty.
and the plaintiff does not take exception to such denial or, upon
appeal,assignsuchdenialaserrororarguethatquestioninhisbrief
or his oral argument, but, instead, relies entirely upon his original
complaint,hewillbedeemedtohaveabandonedhisoffertofilean
amendedcomplaint.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Rizal.
Yusay,J.
Thefactsarestatedintheopinionofthecourt.
A.CruzHerrera,forappellants.
WilliamA.KincaidandThomasL.Hartigan,forappellee.
MORELAND,J.:
TheplaintiffsallegeasacauseofactionthatLinoCajili,aparish
priest of the Roman Catholic Church at Malabon, and, as
administratoroftheCapellanaofMalabon,onoraboutthe20thday
(a)
(b)
(c)
of February, 1908, leased to the plaintiffs certain lands specifically
described in the complaint for the period of six years from said date
that immediately on the execution of said lease the plaintiffs entered
into possession of said lands and thereupon sublet most of them to
other persons, retaining possession of those portions not leased that
theArchbishopofManila,defendantinthisaction,byhisagentsand
employees,entereduponsaidlandspriortothecommencementofthis
action,proceededtosurveysameandleasethemtootherpersons,in
contraventionoftherightsofplaintiffsundertheleasereferredtothat
the plaintiffs, verbally and in writing, prior to the commencement of
this action, notifiedthedefendant,hisagents and employees,of their
rights in the premises, and forbade them to proceed f urther in what
they were executing or to do any other acts in connection with said
property that by reason of said acts of defendant the plaintiffs have
suffereddamageinthesumofP3,000.
Upontheseallegationstheplaintiffsask,intheoriginalcomplaint,
thefollowingrelief:
That they have judgment against the defendant prohibiting
theperformanceoftheactsabovedescribedand
424
424 PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED
Reyesvs.Harty.
ofanyotheractsinviolationoftherightsoftheplaintiffsin
theleasedlands.
That the plaintiffs have judgment against the defendants for
thesumofP3,000asdamagesfortheactscomplainedof.
That the court issue a preliminary injunction against the
defendantorderinghim,hisagentsandemployees,toabstain
fromperforminganyactordoinganythinginviolationofthe
rights of the plaintiffs in the lands referred to during the
pendencyofthisaction.
The answer denied all of the material allegations of the complaint. It
alsoallegedthelackofauthorityonthepartofLinoCajilitomakethe
lease described in the complaint, and that the lease in question was
enteredintoasaresultofaconspiracyonthepartoftheplaintiffsand
saidLinoCajilitoprejudicethedefendantandhisinterests.Thecause
went to trial and evidence was introduced for the purpose of
sustainingtheallegationsofthecomplaintandoflayingabasisforthe
"(a)
"(b)
"(c)
relief demanded thereunder. It appearing, however, on the trial that
the lands aforesaid had, at the time of the trial, been actually seized
and taken possession of by the defendant and the plaintiffs ousted
from their occupation of the same, the plaintiffs, after the trial had
beenterminated,butpriortothesubmissionofthecaseuponwritten
argument, asked leave to file an amended complaint, which, in
addition to the facts alleged in the original complaint, contained the
followingallegations:
"Thatshortlyaftertheplaintiffshadtakenpossessionofthelands
in question they were forcibly dispossessed of the same by the
defendant, through his agents and employees, who since that time
have been in possession of said land, administering the same and
receivingandcollectingthefruitsandprofitsthereofforhisownuse."
The proposed amended complaint further alleges the right of the
plaintiffstorecoverpossessionofsaidlandsasagainstthedefendant,
andendswiththefollowingprayer:
"Theplaintiffsthereforepray:
Thatthecourtdeclarevalidandsubsistingthelease
425
VOL.21,FEBRUARY6,1912. 425
Reyesvs.Harty.
described in the complaint, executed by Lino Cajili in favor
oftheplaintiffsonFebruary20,1908
That the court restore and deliver to the plaintiffs the
possessionofsaidlands
Thatthecourtreservetotheplaintiffstherighttorecoverthe
damages caused and which are being caused by the
defendantduringtheperiodofhispossession."
The court reserved its decision as to the motion to file the said
amended complaint. The first notice that the plaintiffs had of the
refusalofthecourttopermitthefilingoftheamendedcomplaintwas
thatconveyedtothembythedecisionofthecourtfinallydisposingof
thecase.
Theplaintiffstooknospecialexceptiontotherefusalofthecourt
topermitthecomplainttobeamended,andonthisappealassignedno
errorinthatregard.Theirrighttothatreliefwasnotinquestioninthe
court below and is not in question on appeal, the whole brief of the
plaintiffsbeingconfined,bothinextentandinargument,tothefacts
allegedintheoriginalcomplaintandtheproofsmadethereunder.Not
havingtakenanyexception,andnothavingpresentedthequestionon
this appeal, either by assignment of error or by argument, this court
must assume that the plaintiffs abandoned their request to file an
amendedcomplaint.
Thisbeingso,theonlyquestionremainingforourconsiderationis
thatoftherightoftheplaintiffstoapreliminaryinjunctionrestraining
the defendant, his agents and employees, from performing any act
lookingtothedispossessionoftheplaintiffsfromthelandsdescribed
inthecomplaint.
Itisauniversalprincipleofthelawthataninjunctionwillnotissue
torestraintheperformanceofanactalreadydone.Itistheundisputed
proof in this case, presented by the plaintiffs themselves, that, at the
time this cause was tried, the plaintiffs had been completely
dispossessed, the defendant being in full and complete possession of
thelandsinquestionandadministeringtheminbehalfofthechurch.
Thisbeingso,theactionforinjunctionfails.
426
426 PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED
UnitedStatesvs.GoLeng.
Thejudgmentisaffirmeduponthisgroundalone,itnotbeingdesired
bythiscourttoplacethedecisiononanygroundwhichwillprevent
the plaintiffs from exercising any rights of action which they may
haveinrelationtosaidlandsagainstthedefendant,ifany.Nospecial
findingastocosts.
Arellano,C.J.,Torres,Mapa,Johnson,Carson,andTrent,JJ.,
concur.
Judgmentaffirmed.
_______________
Copyright2013CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.