FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 210907. August 17, 2015.]
MARIA LIGAYA JOVER A.K.A. "MARIA LIGAYA MARILYN JOVER," REPRESENTED BY EPHIGENIA PEDROZA CABUYAON, petitioner, vs. HEIRS OF CECILIO BATACLAN, REPRESENTED BY RODRIGO BATACLAN, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated August 17, 2015 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 210907 (Maria Ligaya Jover a.k.a. "Maria Ligaya Marilyn Jover," represented by Ephigenia Pedroza Cabuyaon v. Heirs of Cecilio Bataclan, represented by Rodrigo Bataclan). — The respondents' submission of the verified declaration of the rejoinder, in compliance with the Resolution dated January 26, 2015 is NOTED.
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the May 31, 2013 Decision 1 and December 10, 2013 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP-UDK No. 06030 for failure of petitioner Maria Ligaya Jover a.k.a. "Maria Ligaya Marilyn Jover," represented by Ephigenia Pedroza Cabuyaon (petitioner), to show any reversible error committed by the CA in ruling that the Regional Trial Court of Bogo City, Cebu, Branch 61 (RTC) committed grave abuse of discretion in granting her application for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction in its Orders 3 dated May 5, 2010 and February 24, 2011 in Civil Case No. BOGO-01912.
As correctly ruled by the CA, the RTC failed to justify the issuance of the injunctive writ considering the lack of specific findings of fact and conclusions of law in the May 5, 2010 Order. It is settled that in granting a writ of preliminary injunction, the court is required to state its own findings of fact and cite the particular law to justify such grant. 4 While it is not required that the right claimed by applicant, as basis for seeking injunctive relief, be conclusively established, it is still necessary to show, at least tentatively, that the right exists and is not vitiated by any substantial challenge or contradiction. 5
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 151-158. Penned by Executive Justice Pampio A. Abarintos with Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap concurring.
2. Id. at 177-178.
3. Id. at 180-181 and 195, respectively. Penned by Executive Judge Antonio D. Marigomen.
4. University of the Philippines v. Hon. Catungal, Jr., 338 Phil. 728, 743 (1997), cited in Chan Cuan v. Chiang Kai Shek College, Inc., 558 Phil. 778, 789 (2007).
5. Spouses Dela Rosa v. Heirs of Juan Valdez, 670 Phil. 97, 110 (2011); Spouses Ngo v. Allied Banking Corp., 646 Phil. 681, 685 (2010); Mizona v. CA, 400 Phil. 587, 597 (2000); Developers Group of Companies, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 104583, March 8, 1993, 219 SCRA 715, 721.