SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 246488. July 1, 2019.]
SPOUSES OSCAR S. VILLARTA, SR. AND LUCILA S. VILLARTA, petitioners, vs.NESTOR VILLARTA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated01 July 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 246488 (Spouses Oscar S. Villarta, Sr. and Lucila S. Villarta v. Nestor Villarta)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the April 27, 2018 Decision 2 and the February 27, 2019 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 143637 for failure of petitioners Spouses Oscar S. Villarta, Sr. and Lucila S. Villarta (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in finding that the Regional Trial Court of Santiago City, Branch 35's (RTC) issuance of the assailed April 23, 2015 Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction 4 (WPI) was unwarranted. HTcADC
At the outset, it bears stressing that the Court's scope of review in the instant case is limited only to the examination of the correctness of the CA's rulings in granting the petition for certiorari, 5 which set aside the WPI issued by the RTC. In this regard, the CA correctly held that the RTC's issuance of the WPI was improper, as petitioners failed to prove the existence of clear and unmistakable right in esse, at the time the application was made. 6 The purported right of ownership borne from the alleged validity of the Kasunduan7 dated July 3, 2012, upon which petitioners base their claim for provisional relief, is precisely the primary issue in the main action. Indeed, jurisprudence provides that the grant of injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy granted only to protect actual and existing substantial rights. 8 In applications for mandatory injunction, the Court has ruled that it is generally improper to issue such an injunction prior to the final hearing, and may only issue in cases of extreme urgency, where the right is very clear and free from doubt and dispute, 9 which has not been shown yet in this case.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 10-20.
2.Id. 23-29. Penned by Associate Justice Germano Francisco D. Legaspi with Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, concurring.
3.Id. at 30-32.
4. See Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction. (Status Quo Ante Order); id. at 83.
5. Dated January 5, 2016. Id. at 33-48.
6. See id. at 28.
7.Id. at 56.
8. See Spouses Lim v. Verga, 763 Phil. 328, 337 (2015), citing Pahila-Garrido v. Tortogo, 671 Phil. 320, 343-343 (2011). (Emphasis supplied)
9. See Manila International Airport Authority v. Powergen, Inc., 568 Phil. 481, 489-490 (2008), citing Capitol Medical Center, Inc. v. CA, 258-A Phil. 271, 282-283 (1989). (Emphasis supplied)