B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED
254, MARCH 4, 1996
Cagayan de Oro City Landless Residents Ass., Inc. vs.
CA
I. Recit-ready summary
This section should discuss the relevant parts of the case with
respect to the syllabus topic. It should include the following: (1) topic of
the controversy; (2) relevant facts; (3) ratio; and (4) dispositive.
II. Facts of the case
The land subject of the dispute is Lot. No. 1982 of Cad. 237 which is
about 12.82 hectares (ha) located at Cagayan de Oro City. The land used to
be a timberland but was released by the Bureau of Forestry as alienable and
disposable public land. In 1964, the Bureau of Lands issued Survey
Authority No. 16-64 which granted petitioner, Cagayan de Oro City
Landless Residents Ass., Inc. (COCLAI), to survey the land for purposes of
subdivision into residential lots. COCLAI engaged the services of a
geodetic engineer to prepare the subdivision survey which was submitted to
the Bureau of Lands. The Bureau of Lands then required COCLAI to file a
miscellaneous Sales Application over the land. However, the application
was held in abeyance by the Bureau pending the final outcome of the civil
case filed by the Republic and CDO against Benedicta Macabebe Salcedo
for the annulment of the Original Certificate Title which covers the land in
question.
Meanwhile, the National Housing Authority (NHA) filed an
expropriation proceeding before the CFI to acquire Cadastral Lot. No. 1982,
which includes the subject land, in Macabalan (CDO) with an area of
224,554 sq. m. COCLAI intervened in that said case and claimed that
instead of being paid P300,000, they prefer to acquire residential lots in
any housing are of NHA. NHA learned that the civil case against Salcedo
was pending before the Supreme Court (SC) so it sought the suspension of
the expropriation proceedings. Finally, the SC resolved to annul the title
and declared the land as public land.
The Solicitor General then furnished the Bureau of Lands with a copy
of the SC decision and prompted the Director of the Bureau of Lands to
order the District Land Officer to take appropriate action for inventory of
each and every portion of Cadastral Lot. No. 1982. The Regional Land
Director then informed the Director of Lands that members of COCLAI
were occupying portions of the said land by virtue of the Survey
Authority.
G.R. NO: 106043
ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Writ of preliminary injunction; forcible entry
VOL.
Cagayan de Oro City Landless Residents Ass., Inc. vs.
CA
The President of the Philippines then issued Proclamation No. 2292
which reserved the entire are of Cadastral Lot. No. 1982 for the Slum
Improvement and Resettlement (SIR) Project under the NHA. It granted
NHA the authority to develop, administer, and dispose of Lot No. 1982.
The Bureau of Lands then issued an order which rejected the subdivision
survey that was previously submitted by COCLAI. The NHA, through its
agents Dacalos and Generalao, and with the help of the policemen,
demolished the structures by COCLAI on the said lot. This resulted in
COCLAI filing a case for forcible entry and damages against NHA
employees and police officers in the MTCC.
The MTCC rendered judgment ordering the defendants to restore the
COCLAI members to their respective actual possession of the portions of
the lot but dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for damages. The defendants
appealed to the RTC but it affirmed the decision of the MTCC. While the
said case was pending before the courts, the President issued Special
Patent No. 3351 which issued an Original Certificate of Title covering the
Cadastral Lot No. 1982 in the name of NHA. A day after COCLAI moved
for the execution of the judgment of the RTC, NHA filed a complaint for
‘Quieting of Title with Application for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction’
against COCLAI and its president, Solomon, as well as the City Sheriff.
The RTC then issued a restraining order and/or preliminary injunction.
COCLAI moved to dismiss the complaint claiming that the cause of action
is barred by a prior judgment in another case (NHA also filed an action for
Injunction with Damages against COCLAI and its president before the RTC
but was dismissed on the ground that the decision of MTCC had been
upheld by the SC when it denied NHA’s petition for certiorari). RTC issued
an order denying both the motion to dismiss and NHA’s prayer for the
issuance of a preliminary injunction to restrain the enforcement of the
decision the other case filed by COCLAI. NHA filed of a motion for
reconsideration but was likewise denied. NHA appealed to the CA which
reversed the decision of the lower court hence this petition.
III. Issue/s
1. Did CA err in ruling that NHA is entitled to the injunction prayed
for? No.
2. Did CA err in ruling that NHA has a better right to the possession
of the lot as a necessary consequence of ownership? No.
IV. Ratio/Legal Basis
PONENTE: Hermosisima, Jr., J.
DIGEST MAKER: Ejie
 B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 254, MARCH 4, 1996
Cagayan de Oro City Landless Residents Ass., Inc. vs. Cagayan de Oro City Landless Residents Ass., Inc. vs.
CA CA

The Court defined an injunction as a calculated to preserve or maintain property was not disputed by the petitioner in the case which it filed.
the status quo of things and is generally availed of to prevent actual or Therefore, the petitioner’s occupation of the land in question, after the
threatened acts, until merits of the case can be heard. It is accepted as the denial of its application for Miscellaneous Sales Patent, became
“strong arm of equity or a transcendent remedy” to be used cautiously, as it subsequently illegal. Petitioner’s members then became squatters whose
affects the respective rights of parties, and only upon full conviction on the continuous possession of the land may now be considered in bad faith.
part of the court of its extreme necessity. It can only be resorted to by a
litigant for the preservation and protection of his rights and interests during V. Disposition
the pendency of the principal action.
There are two requisites before an injunction can be issued: 1) there Wherefore, petition is dismissed. The decision of the Court of Appeals is
must be a right in esse or the existence of a right to be protected; and 2) the affirmed.
act against which the injunction is to be directed is a violation of such right.
In this case, the CA was right in ruling that the NHA was entitled to the writ VI. Notes
of injunction. While the case for forcible entry was pending in the RTC, the
President issued Special Patent No. 3551 which issued an OTC in the name This section includes all other author’s notes which adds information
of NHA. This means that when petitioner moved for the issuance of a writ on the case. Content here includes a summary of each separate opinion, if
of execution, NHA already had the title over the land. Therefore, it was any, scandalous nature of the case, and other notable information on the
correct for CA to direct the RTC to grant the writ of preliminary injunction case. This part also includes provisions cited in other parts of the
prayed for by the NHA. Clearly, the government, through the NHA will be Constitution or other relevant laws.
prejudiced by the enforcement of the RTC decision to restore the members
of COCLAI to their respective possession of portions of Lot. No. 1982.
COCLAI claims that the issuance of the Special Patent merely
entrusted the administration of the lot to NHA and not its ownership and by
virtue of the declaring the land as SIR area, it is illegal for NHA to claim
ownership over the land. COCLAI further claims that CA overlooked the
fact that issues on ownership and possession are under judgment before the
RTC and therefore it cannot pass upon the issues as there is still no final
judgment. The contentions of petitioner are bereft of merit. The OTC issued
to NHA serves as a concrete and conclusive evidence of an indefeasible
title to the property. Once a decree of registration has been issued under
the Torrens system and a 1-year period has lapsed without the said decree
being controverted, the title becomes perfect and cannot later on be
questioned. The said OTC was not controverted by the petitioner in a proper
proceeding nor did it show that the OTC was issued with fraud or bad faith.
Therefore, the title enjoys the presumption of having been issued by the
register of deeds in the regular performance of its official duty.
It is clear that when the OTC was given to NHA, it vested not only
ownership over the lot but also the right of possession as a necessary
consequence of the right of ownership. As the case filed by the petitioner
was only of forcible entry, the issue only involved physical possession and
not juridical possession or ownership. Therefore, the legal title over the

G.R. NO: 106043 PONENTE: Hermosisima, Jr., J.

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Writ of preliminary injunction; forcible entry DIGEST MAKER: Ejie