Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HEIRS OF JOAQUIN ASUNCION v. MARGARITO GERVACIO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR NO. 119280 2006-08-10	UNILEVER PHILIPPINES v. CA CORONA, J.
The sole objective of a writ of preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard fully.[8] A writ of preliminary injunction is generally based solely on initial and incomplete evidence.[9] Thus, it was impossible for the court a quo to fully dispose of the case, as claimed by petitioner, without all the evidence needed for the full resolution of the same. To date, the main case still has to be resolved by the trial court.
	GR NO. 153925 2006-08-10	FOOD TERMINAL v. SHOPPERS PARADISE FTI CORPORATION CORONA, J.
The writ of preliminary injunction is issued by the trial court to prevent threatened or continuous irremediable injury to parties before their claims can be thoroughly studied and adjudicated.[14] Its sole objective is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard fully.[15] To warrant the issuance of an injunctive writ, all that is necessary is for the party seeking it to show that injurious consequences will result if the writ is not issued.[16] In this case, pending the final determination of their conflicting claims, the trial court deemed it best to issue the assailed writ to avert any deleterious effect (of padlocking or repossessing) on both parties' interests under the lease contract.
	GR NO. 143870 2005-09-30	MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. RIVERA VILLAGE LESSEE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION TINGA, J.
Injunction is a preservative remedy aimed at protecting substantive rights and interests. The writ of preliminary injunction is issued by the court to prevent threatened or continuous irreparable injury to parties before their claims can be thoroughly studied and adjudicated. Its sole objective is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard fully. The writ is issued upon the satisfaction of two requisites, namely: (1) the existence of a right to be protected; and (2) acts which are violative of said right. In the absence of a clear legal right, the issuance of the injunctive relief constitutes grave abuse of discretion. Injunction is not designed to protect contingent or future rights. Where the complainant's right is doubtful or disputed, injunction is not proper. The possibility of irreparable damage without proof of actual existing right is not a ground for an injunction.[38]
	GR Nos. 139275-76 and 140949 2004-11-25	LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It was the trial court's belief that to allow the contract to expire would render respondent's action for reformation of contract moot and academic.[30] Needless to say, a contract can be renewed, revived or extended only by mutual consent of the parties. No court can compel a party to agree to a contract through the instrumentality of a writ of preliminary injunction.[31] Also, the possibility of irreparable damage without proof of actual existing right is not a ground for an injunction.[32]
	GR No. 140228 2004-11-19	FRANCISCO MEDINA v. GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
(3) that there is an urgent and permanent act and urgent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. Hence, petitioners' entitlement to the injunctive writ hinges on their prima facie legal right to the properties subject of the present dispute. The Court notes that the present dispute is based solely on the parties' allegations in their respective pleadings and the documents attached thereto. We have on one hand, petitioners' bare assertion or claim that they are co-owners of the properties sold by their predecessors to respondent, and on the other, respondent's claim of ownership supported by deeds of conveyances and torrens titles in their favor. From these alone, it is clear that petitioners failed to discharge the burden of clearly showing a clear and unmistakable right to be protected. Where the complainant's right or title is doubtful or disputed, injunction is not proper. The possibility of irreparable damage without proof of actual existing right is not a ground for an injunction.[18]
	GR No. 141602 2001-11-22	PACSPORTS PHILS. v. NICCOLO SPORTS SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
It is a long settled rule[4] that for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to issue, the following requisites must be present: (1) that the complainant has a clear legal right; (2) that his right has been violated and the invasion is material and substantial; and (3) there is an urgent and permanent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. Equally settled[5] is that, as a rule, injunction will not be granted to take property out of the possession or control of one party and place it into that of another whose title has not clearly been established by law.