Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SAMAHAN NG MASANG PILIPINO SA MAKATI v. BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 192896 2013-07-24	DREAM VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION v. BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REYES, J.
Petitioner Dream Village Neighborhood Association, Inc. (Dream Village) claims to represent more than 2,000 families who have been occupying a 78,466-square meter lot in Western Bicutan, Taguig City since 1985 "in the concept of owners continuously, exclusively and notoriously."[6] The lot used to be part of the Hacienda de Maricaban (Maricaban), owned by Dolores Casal y Ochoa and registered under a Torrens title,[7] Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 291, issued on October 17, 1906 by the Registry of Deeds of Rizal.[8] Maricaban covered several parcels of land with a total area of over 2,544 hectares spread out over Makati, Pasig, Taguig, Pasay, and Parañaque.[9]
	GR No. 187872 2011-04-11	STRATEGIC ALLIANCE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. STAR INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ET AL. PEREZ, J.
As an adjunct to the main action subject to the latter's outcome,[34] on the other hand, a writ of preliminary injunction may be issued upon the concurrence of the following essential requisites, to wit: (1) that the invasion of the right is material and substantial; (2) that the right of complainant is clear and unmistakable; and, (3) that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.[35] Concurrence of the foregoing requisites is evident from the fact that STRADEC has been deprived of its rights to its shareholdings and to participate in SIDC's corporate affairs as a consequence of the impugned loan and pledge as well as the transfer of the shares to respondent Wong and CTCII. For these reasons alone, we find that STRADEC is entitled to a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain: (a) CTCII from further exercising proprietary rights over the subject shares; (b) SIDC and its officers from recognizing the transfer or further transfers of the same; (c) the implementation of the resolutions passed during the 20 July 2006 SIDC stockholders' special meeting; and, (d) the SEC from acting on any report submitted in respect thereto. Far from amounting to a prejudgment of the case, the restraint of said acts is merely in the service of the office of a writ of preliminary injunction, i.e., the restoration of the status quo ante as well preservation and protection of the rights of the litigant during the pendency of the case.[36]
	GR No. 187872 2010-11-17	STRATEGIC ALLIANCE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. STAR INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ET AL. PEREZ, J.
Considering that the determination of the factual and legal issues presented in the case can proceed independent of those being litigated in the other cases filed against each other by the members of STRADEC's Board of Directors, we find that the CA finally erred in denying STRADEC's application of a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain (a) CTCII from further exercising proprietary rights over the subject shares; (b) SIDC and its officers from recognizing the transfer or further transfers of the same; (c) the implementation of the resolutions passed during the 20 July 2006 SIDC stockholders' special meeting; and (d) the SEC from acting on any report submitted in respect thereto. A provisional remedy which has, for its object, the preservation of the status quo,[58] preliminary injunction may be resorted to by a party in order to preserve and protect certain rights and interests during the pendency of an action.[59] By both law and jurisprudence, said provisional writ may be issued upon the concurrence of the following essential requisites, to wit: (1) that the invasion of the right is material and substantial; (2) that the right of complainant is clear and unmistakable; and, (3) that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.[60]
	GR No. 179892-93 2009-01-30	ATTY. VICTORIANO V. OROCIO v. EDMUND P. ANGULUAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order, requiring a party or a court, agency or a person to refrain from a particular act or acts.[34] A writ of preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy, an adjunct to a main suit, as well as a preservative remedy issued to preserve the status quo of the things subject of the action or the relations between the parties during the pendency of the suit.[35] For a writ of preliminary injunction to issue, the applicant is tasked to establish and convincingly show the following: (1) a right in esse or a clear and unmistakable right to be protected; (2) a violation of that right; and (3) there is an urgent and permanent act and urgent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.[36]