You are on page 1of 3

GR No.

164529 / 19 June 2007

Felix Ocampo, represented by George Butler, Jr. v. Alicia Sison Vda. De Fernandez

Facts: Spouses Ramon and Iluminada Piano took custody of George Butler Jr., though there was
no evidence of legal adoption After Ramon passed away, Iluminada executed a document
supposedly bequeathing to George, Jr. the ownership of her properties, including the Cubao
property which is subject of the litigation. After Iluminadas death, George Jr. and his family
lived on the subject land until their possession was disturbed by Leticia Fernandez, who
instituted an action of unlawful detainer against him. He later learned that Iluminada
transferred the property by Deed of Sale to Alicia Sison Vda. De Fernandez. George Jr. did not
appeal the unlawful detainer case and was served a Notice to Vacate. George Jr. then filed
against Alicia and Leticia for recovery of ownership, TRO and preliminary injunction, and the
Complaint was filed by George Jr. as the administrator in behalf of Iluminadas other heirs. This
Complaint was later amended to name Felix the petitioner represented by George Jr. as
attorney-in-fact. The RTC granted Felixs prayer for issuance of writ of preliminary injunction.
Alicia and Leticia appealed to the CA, which decided in their favor.

Issue: WON the CA erred in reversing the RTCs Order granting the injunction.

Ruling: NO. Section 3, Rule 58 of the Revised Rules of Court enumerated the grounds for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction: (a) The applicant is entitled to the relief demanded,
and the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the
act or acts complained of, or in requiring the performance of an act or acts, either for a limited
period or perpetually; (b) The commission, continuance or non-performance of the act or acts
complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; or (c) A
party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, or is
procuring or suffering to be done, some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the
applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment
ineffectual. The sole object of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo until the
merits of the case can be heard. It is usually granted when it is made to appear that there is a
substantial controversy between the parties and one of them is committing an act or threatening
the immediate commission of an act that will cause irreparable injury or destroy the status quo
of the controversy before a full hearing can be had on the merits of the case. A clear and positive
right especially calling for judicial protection must be shown. There must be a patent showing
by the applicant that there exists a right to be protected and that the acts against which the writ
is to be directed are violative of said right.

In the present Petition, petitioner Felix miserably failed to establish such a clear and positive
right that would entitle him to the issuance of the injunctive writ prayed for. The complainant
in Civil Case No. Q-01-44582 is petitioner Felix, and not George, Jr., as George, Jr. is only
supposed to represent petitioner Felix in the said case for reconveyance of the subject property.
Petitioner Felix is the identified party-in-interest based on the allegation that he is a legal
collateral heir of Iluminada. Therefore, the right to the subject property that must be established
is that of petitioner Felix and not that of George, Jr.

GR No. 193415 / 18 April 2012

Sps. Arevalo v. Planters Development Bank and The Register of Deeds of Paranaque City

Facts: Petitioners executed a Loan Agreement with respondent Bank secured by a mortgage on
their property in Paranaque City. Due to their failure to pay the loan, the Bank extra-judicially
foreclosed the mortgage. Petitioners filed the First Complaint praying to nullify the interests
and other charges, for specific performance and also applied for a TRO and writ of preliminary
injunction to enjoin the sale of the property. The trial court ruled that as a precondition for the
issuance of the writ, petitioners must pay 12% per annum interest on the principal obligation.
Petitioners then clarified the 12% interest per annum rule, as they alleged that it applies only
when the applicant alleges that the interest rate is unconscionable. The trial court however
affirmed their decision. Petitioners failed to pay the interest and no writ was issued. The trial
court then dismissed the case. Petitioners appealed the case to the CA, but the CA affirmed the
decision of the trial court. It appeared also that petitioners filed a Second Complaint praying for
the nullification of the real estate mortgage, with application for preliminary injunction and

1. WON the requirement to pay 12% interest per annum before the issuance of an
injunctive writ to enjoin an impending foreclosure sale is applicable to the instant case
2. WON petitioners are guilty of forum shopping.

1. NO. Upon dismissal of the Complaint by the trial court, the issue of whether the writ of
injunction should issue has become moot. A case becomes moot and academic when
there is no more actual controversy between the parties or useful purpose that can be
served in passing upon the merits. There remains no actual controversy in the instant
Petition because the Complaint has already been dismissed by the trial court. Upon its
dismissal, the question of the non-issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction
necessarily died with it. A writ of preliminary injunction is auxiliary to, an adjunct of,
and subject to the outcome of the main case, thus, a writ of preliminary injunction is
deemed lifted upon dismissal of the main case, any appeal notwithstanding.
2. YES. Petitioners committed two acts of forum shopping: a) they wilfully and deliberately
went to different courts to avail themselves of multiple judicial remedies founded on
similar facts and raising substantially similar reliefs (the First and Second Complaint),
and (b) they did not comply with their undertaking to report the filing of the Second
Complaint within five days from its filing (petitioners claimed it was merely due to
inadvertence that they failed to disclose the filing of the Second Complaint within 5
days, contrary to their undertaking). Forum shopping is the act of litigants who
repetitively avail themselves of multiple judicial remedies in different fora,
simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and
the same essential facts and circumstances; and raising substantially similar issues either
pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court; or for the purpose of
increasing their chances of obtaining a favorable decision, if not in one court, then in
another. Every litigant is required to notify the court of the filing or pendency of any
other action or such other proceeding involving the same or similar action or claim
within five (5) days of learning of that fact.