Special Civil Actions Initiated by Complaint: Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage (Rule 68)

Monzon vs. Sps. Relova (GR 171827)

Rule 68 governs the judicial foreclosure of mortgages. Extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgages, which was what transpired in the case at bar, is governed by Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118, Section 6 of Republic Act No. 7353, Section 18 of Republic Act No. 7906, and Section 47 of Republic Act No. 8791.


Even if, for the sake of argument, Rule 68 is to be applied to extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgages, such right can only be given to second mortgagees who are made parties to the (judicial) foreclosure.While a second mortgagee is a proper and in a sense even a necessary party to a proceeding to foreclose a first mortgage on real property, he is not an indispensable party, because a valid decree may be made, as between the mortgagor and the first mortgagee, without regard to the second mortgage; but the consequence of a failure to make the second mortgagee a party to the proceeding is that the lien of the second mortgagee on the equity of redemption is not affected by the decree of foreclosure.

ABACA Corp. of the Phils. vs. Garcia (GR 118408)

There are three (3) types of sales arising from failure to pay a mortgage debt, namely, the extrajudicial foreclosure sale, the judicial foreclosure sale and the ordinary execution sale. These in turn are governed by three (3) different laws. Act No. 3135 governs extrajudicial foreclosure sale, Rule 68 of the Rules of Court deals with judicial foreclosure sale, while Rule 39 covers ordinary execution sale. Act No. 3135 or An Actto Regulate the Sale of Property under Special Powers Inserted in or Annexed to Real Estate Morgage applies to the case at bar.

Villanueva vs. Cherdan Lending Investors Corp. (GR 177881)

A writ of possession is an order of the court commanding the sheriff to place a person in possession of a real or personal property. It may be issued in an extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage under Section 7 of Act 3135, as amended by Act 4118, either 1) within the one-year redemption period, upon the filing of a bond, or 2) after the lapse of the redemption period, without need of a bond or of a separate and independent action.

Sps. Rosales vs. Sps. Suba (GR 137792)

Clearly, as a general rule, there is no right of redemption in a judicial foreclosure of mortgage. The only exemption is when the mortgagee is the Philippine National Bank or a bank or a banking institution. Since the mortgagee in this case is not one of those mentioned, no right of redemption exists in favor of petitioners. They merely have an equity of redemption, which, to reiterate, is simply their right, as mortgagor, to extinguish the mortgage and retain ownership of the property by paying the secured debt prior to the confirmation of the foreclosure sale. However, instead of exercising this equity of redemption, petitioners chose to delay the proceedings by filing several manifestations with the trial court. Thus, they only have themselves to blame for the consequent loss of their property.

Metropolitan Bank and Trust company vs. Lamb Construction Consortium Corp. (GR 170906)

Once the foreclosure is declared valid and a re-computation of the total amount of obligation is made, the court in the same case may order petitioner to return the surplus, if any, pursuant to the legal maxim, Nemo cum alterius detrimento locupletari potest no person shall be allowed to enrich himself unjustly at the expense of others.





Special Civil Actions Initiated by Complaint: Expropriation (Rule 67)

Sps. Yusay vs. CA (GR 156684)

Here, however, the remedy of prohibition was not called for, considering that only a resolution expressing the desire of the Sangguniang Panglungsod to expropriate the petitioners property was issued. As of then, it was premature for the petitioners to mount any judicial challenge, for the power of eminent domain could be exercised by the City only through the filing of a verified complaint in the proper court. Before the City as the expropriating authority filed such verified complaint, no expropriation proceeding could be said to exist. Until then, the petitioners as the owners could not also be deprived of their property under the power of eminent domain.

Republic vs. Hon. Mangotara (GR 170375)

Consolidated cases: 

Now, is the owner of the property an indispensable party in an action for expropriation? Not necessarily.

Going back to Rule 67, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, expropriation proceedings may be instituted even when title to the property sought to be condemned appears to be in the Republic of the Philippines, although occupied by private individuals. The same rule provides that a complaint for expropriation shall name as defendants all persons owning or claiming to own, or occupying, any part thereof or interest in the property sought to be condemned. Clearly, when the property already appears to belong to the Republic, there is no sense in the Republic instituting expropriation proceedings against itself. It can still, however, file a complaint for expropriation against the private persons occupying the property. In such an expropriation case, the owner of the property is not an indispensable party.


The Republic is not engaging in contradictions when it instituted both expropriation and reversion proceedings for the same parcels of land. The expropriation and reversion proceedings are distinct remedies that are not necessarily exclusionary of each other.

NAPOCOR vs. Hon. Paderanga (GR 155065)

While admittedly a complaint for expropriation is not a special proceeding, the above-quoted rule requires the filing of a record on appeal in other cases of multiple or separate appeal.

Jurisprudential law, no doubt, recognizes the existence of multiple appeals in a complaint for expropriation.


Indeed, expropriation is not limited to the acquisition of real property with a corresponding transfer of title or possession. The right-of-way easement resulting in a restriction or limitation on property rights over the land traversed by transmission lines, as in the present case, also falls within the ambit of the term expropriation


The determination of just compensation in expropriation proceedings being a judicial function, this Court finds the commissioners recommendation of P516.66 per square meter, which was approved by the trial court, to be just and reasonable compensation for the expropriated property of Dilao and her siblings.

Metropolitan Cebu Water District vs. J.King and Sons Co., Inc. (GR 175983)

The general rule is that upon filing of the expropriation complaint, the plaintiff has the right to take or enter into possession of the real property involved if he deposits with the authorized government depositary an amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property for purposes of taxation. An exception to this procedure is provided by R.A. No. 8974. It requires the payment of one hundred percent (100%) of the zonal value of the property to be expropriated to entitle the plaintiff to a writ of possession.

In an expropriation proceeding there are two stages, first, is the determination of the validity of the expropriation, and second is the determination of just compensation. In Tan v. Republic, we explained the two (2) stages in an expropriation proceeding to wit:

(1) Determination of the authority of the plaintiff to exercise the power of eminent domain and the propriety of its exercise in the context of the facts involved in the suit. It ends with an order, if not of dismissal of the action, with condemnation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property sought to be condemned for the public use or purpose described in the complaint, upon payment of just compensation. An order of expropriation is final. An order of dismissal, if this be ordained, would be a final one, as it finally disposes of the action and leaves nothing more to be done by the courts on the merits. The order of expropriation would also be a final one for after its issuance, no objection to the right of condemnation shall be heard. The order of expropriation may be appealed by any party aggrieved thereby by filing a record on appeal.

(2) Determination by the court of the just compensation for the property sought to be taken with the assistance of not more than three (3) commissioners. The order fixing the just compensation on the basis of the evidence before the court and findings of the commissioners would likewise be a final one, as it would leave nothing more to be done by the court regarding the issue. A second and separate appeal may be taken from this order fixing the just compensation.

Republic vs. Hon. Gingoyon (GR 166429)

En Banc

Rep. Act No. 8974 is entitled An Act To Facilitate The Acquisition Of Right-Of-Way, Site Or Location For National Government Infrastructure Projects And For Other Purposes. Obviously, the law is intended to cover expropriation proceedings intended for national government infrastructure projects.


The issuance of the writ of possession does not write finis to the expropriation proceedings. As earlier pointed out, expropriation is not completed until payment to the property owner of just compensation. The proffered value stands as merely a provisional determination of the amount of just compensation, the payment of which is sufficient to transfer possession of the property to the Government. However, to effectuate the transfer of ownership, it is necessary for the Government to pay the property owner the final just compensation.


Special Civil Actions Initiated by Complaint: Interpleader (Rule 62)

RCBC vs. Metro Container Corp. (GR 127913)

It should be remembered that an action of interpleader is afforded to protect a person not against double liability but against double vexation in respect of one liability. It requires, as an indespensable requisite, that conflicting claims upon the same subject matter are or may be made against the plaintiff-in-interpleader who claims no interest whatever in the subject matter or an interest which in whole or in part is not disputed by the claimants. The decision in Civil Case No. 6202 resolved the conflicting claims insofar as payment of rentals was concerned.

Ocampo vs. Tirona (GR 147812)

An action for interpleader is proper when the lessee does not know the person to whom to pay rentals due to conflicting claims on the property.

Maglente vs. Hon. Baltazar-Padilla (GR 148182)

Petitioners argument that the trial courts writ of execution in the interpleader case carried with it the corollary right to a writ of possession is without merit. A writ of possession complements the writ of execution only when the right of possession or ownership has been validly determined in a case directly relating to either. The interpleader case obviously did not delve into that issue.

Ramos vs. Ramos (GR 144294)

The Complaint filed by respondents with the RTC called for an interpleader to determine the ownership of the real property in question. Specifically, it forced persons claiming an interest in the land to settle the dispute among themselves as to which of them owned the property. Essentially, it sought to resolve the ownership of the land and was not directed against the personal liability of any particular person. It was therefore a real action, because it affected title to or possession of real property.  As such, the Complaint was brought against the deceased registered co-owners: Narcisa, Mario, Paulino and Antonio Chanliongco, as represented by their respective estates.


Provisional Remedies: Support Pendente Lite

Mangonon vs. CA (GR 125041)

A court may temporarily grant support pendente lite prior to the rendition of judgment or final order. Because of its provisional nature, a court does not need to delve fully into the merits of the case before it can settle an application for this relief. All that a court is tasked to do is determine the kind and amount of evidence which may suffice to enable it to justly resolve the application. It is enough that the facts be established by affidavits or other documentary evidence appearing in the record.

Gan vs. Hon. Reyes (GR 145527)

The money and property adjudged for support and education should and must be given presently and without delay because if it had to wait the final judgment, the children may in the meantime have suffered because of lack of food or have missed and lost years in school because of lack of funds. One cannot delay the payment of such funds for support and education for the reason that if paid long afterwards, however much the accumulated amount, its payment cannot cure the evil and repair the damage caused. The children with such belated payment for support and education cannot act as gluttons and eat voraciously and unwisely, afterwards, to make up for the years of hunger and starvation. Neither may they enrol in several classes and schools and take up numerous subjects all at once to make up for the years they missed in school, due to non-payment of the funds when needed.


Provisional Remedies: Replevin

Superlines vs. PNCC (GR 169596)

In a complaint for replevin, the claimant must convincingly show that he is either the owner or clearly entitled to the possession of the object sought to be recovered, and that the defendant, who is in actual or legal possession thereof, wrongfully detains the same.

BA Finance Corp. vs. CA (GR 102998)

Replevin, broadly understood, is both a form of principal remedy and of a provisional relief. It may refer either to the action itself, i.e., to regain the possession of personal chattels being wrongfully detained from the plaintiff by another, or to the provisional remedy that would allow the plaintiff to retain the thing during the pendency of the action and hold it pendente lite. The action is primarily possessory in nature and generally determines nothing more than the right of possession. Replevin is so usually described as a mixed action, being partly in rem and partly in personam-in rem insofar as the recovery of specific property is concerned, and in personam as regards to damages involved. As an “action in rem,” the gist of the replevin action is the right of the plaintiff to obtain possession of specific personal property by reason of his being the owner or of his having a special interest therein.  Consequently, the person in possession of the property sought to be replevied is ordinarily the proper and only necessary party defendant, and the plaintiff is not required to so join as defendants other persons claiming a right on the property but not in possession thereof. Rule 60 of the Rules of Court allows an application for the immediate possession of the property but the plaintiff must show that he has a good legal basis, i.e., a clear title thereto, for seeking such interim possession.

Fernandez cs. International Corporate Bank (GR 131283)

Thus, the Writ of Replevin issued by Judge Paas, xxxx may be validly enforced anywhere in the Philippines. Petitioners confused the jurisdiction of a court to hear and decide a case on the one hand with, on the other, its power to issue writs and processes pursuant to and in the exercise of said jurisdiction. Applying the said Rule, Malaloan v. Court of Appeals reiterated the foregoing distinction between the jurisdiction of the trial court and the administrative area in which it could enforce its orders and processes pursuant to the jurisdiction conferred on it.

Advent Capital and Finance Corp. vs. Young (GR 183018)

Upon the dismissal of the replevin case for failure to prosecute, the writ of seizure, which is merely ancillary in nature, became functus officio and should have been lifted. There was no adjudication on the merits, which means that there was no determination of the issue who has the better right to possess the subject car. Advent cannot therefore retain possession of the subject car considering that it was not adjudged as the prevailing party entitled to the remedy of replevin. 

The dismissal of the replevin case for failure to prosecute results in the restoration of the parties status prior to litigation, as if no complaint was filed at all. To let the writ of seizure stand after the dismissal of the complaint would be adjudging Advent as the prevailing party, when precisely no decision on the merits had been rendered. Accordingly, the parties must be reverted to their status quo ante. Since Young possessed the subject car before the filing of the replevin case, the same must be returned to him, as if no complaint was filed at all.

Rivera vs. Vargas (GR 165895)

What is the effect of a writ of replevin that has been improperly served?

The trial court is reminded that not only should the writ or order of replevin comply with all the requirements as to matters of form or contents prescribed by the Rules of Court. The writ must also satisfy proper service in order to be valid and effective: i.e. it should be directed to the officer who is authorized to serve it; and it should be served upon the person who not only has the possession or custody of the property involved but who is also a party or agent of a party to the action. Consequently, a trial court is deemed to have acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction with respect to the ancillary action of replevin if it seizes and detains a personalty on the basis of a writ that was improperly served, such as what happened in this case.

At the outset, petitioners proper remedy should have been to file a motion to quash the writ of replevin or a motion to vacate the order of seizure. Nevertheless, petitioners filing of an application for a redelivery bond, while not necessary, did not thereby waive her right to question the improper service. It now becomes imperative for the trial court to restore the parties to their former positions by returning the seized property to petitioner and by discharging the replevin bond filed by respondent. The trial, with respect to the main action, shall continue. Respondent may, however, file a new application for replevin should he choose to do so.

Navarro vs. Hon. Escobido (GR 153788)

In arguing that prior demand is required before an action for a writ of replevin is filed, Navarro apparently likens a replevin action to an unlawful detainer.

Prior demand is not a condition precedent to an action for a writ of replevin.

More importantly, Navarro is no longer in the position to claim that a prior demand is necessary, as he has already admitted in his Answers that he had received the letters that Karen Go sent him, demanding that he either pay his unpaid obligations or return the leased motor vehicles. Navarros position that a demand is necessary and has not been made is therefore totally unmeritorious.

Madarang vs. CA (GR 143044)

Article 33 of the Civil Code provides that in cases involving alleged fraudulent acts, a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. It is clear, therefore, that the civil case for replevin may proceed independently of the criminal cases for falsification and grave coercion, especially because while both cases are based on the same facts, the quantum of proof required for holding the parties liable therein differs.



Provisional Remedies: Receivership

Chavez vs. CA (GR 174356)

We hold that the CA erred in granting receivership over the property in dispute in this case. For one thing, a petition for receivership under Section 1(b), Rule 59 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the property or fund subject of the action is in danger of being lost, removed, or materially injured, necessitating its protection or preservation. Its object is the prevention of imminent danger to the property. If the action does not require such protection or preservation, the remedy is not receivership.

Sps. Larrobis vs. Philippine Veterans Bank (GR 135706)

When a bank is declared insolvent and placed under receivership, the Central Bank, through the Monetary Board, determines whether to proceed with the liquidation or reorganization of the financially distressed bank. A receiver, who concurrently represents the bank, then takes control and possession of its assets for the benefit of the banks creditors. A liquidator meanwhile assumes the role of the receiver upon the determination by the Monetary Board that the bank can no longer resume business. His task is to dispose of all the assets of the bank and effect partial payments of the banks obligations in accordance with legal priority. In both receivership and liquidation proceedings, the bank retains its juridical personality notwithstanding the closure of its business and may even be sued as its corporate existence is assumed by the receiver or liquidator. The receiver or liquidator meanwhile acts not only for the benefit of the bank, but for its creditors as well.

Vivares vs. Eng’r. Reyes (GR 155408)

Since a notice of lis pendens has been annotated on the titles of the disputed properties, the rights of petitioners are amply safeguarded and preserved since there can be no risk of losing the property or any part of it as a result of any conveyance of the land or any encumbrance that may be made thereon posterior to the filing of the notice of lis pendens. Once the annotation is made, any subsequent conveyance of the lot by the respondent would be subject to the outcome of the litigation since the fact that the properties are under custodia legis is made known to all and sundry by operation of law. Hence, there is no need for a receiver to look after the disputed properties.

Lucia Barrameda Vda. De Ballesteros vs. Rural Bank of Canaman Inc. (GR176260)

The cited Morfe case held that after the Monetary Board has declared that a bank is insolvent and has ordered it to cease operations, the Board becomes the trustee of its assets for the equal benefit of all the creditors, including depositors. The assets of the insolvent banking institution are held in trust for the equal benefit of all creditors, and after its insolvency, one cannot obtain an advantage or a preference over another by an attachment, execution or otherwise.

Thus, to allow Lucias case to proceed independently of the liquidation case, a possibility of favorable judgment and execution thereof against the assets of RBCI would not only prejudice the other creditors and depositors but would defeat the very purpose for which a liquidation court was constituted as well.

Making Enterprises Inc. vs. Marfori (GR 152239)

Here, respondents submit that they have satisfactorily established their legal right over the Marsman Building. They alleged that the building and the income and rentals thereof are in danger of being lost, removed or materially injured by the apathy, neglect and fraudulent design of petitioners thereby rendering the appointment of a receiver both urgent and imperative. However, they failed to show how the building as well as the income thereof would disappear or be wasted if not entrusted to a receiver. They were not able to prove that the property has been materially injured, necessitating its protection and preservation.Because receivership is a harsh remedy that can be granted only in extreme situations, respondents must prove a clear right to its issuance. This they failed to do.

We furthermore observe that in granting the appointment of a receiver, the CA merely concluded that respondents have sufficiently proven that they have an interest in the Marsman Building. It further held that unless a receiver is appointed, there is a danger of loss or material injury, considering that petitioners presently possess absolute control of the building and the rentals accruing thereof. However, there was no justification on how the CA arrived at its conclusion.

Koruga vs. Arcenas (GR 168332), Arcenas Vs. Judge Marella Jr (GR 169053)


Crystal clear in Section 30 is the provision that says the appointment of a receiver under this section shall be vested exclusively with the Monetary Board. The term exclusively connotes that only the Monetary Board can resolve the issue of whether a bank is to be placed under receivership and, upon an affirmative finding, it also has authority to appoint a receiver. This is further affirmed by the fact that the law allows the Monetary Board to take action summarily and without need for prior hearing.

And, as a clincher, the law explicitly provides that actions of the Monetary Board taken under this section or under Section 29 of this Act shall be final and executory, and may not be restrained or set aside by the court except on a petition for certiorari on the ground that the action taken was in excess of jurisdiction or with such grave abuse of discretion as to amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

From the foregoing disquisition, there is no doubt that the RTC has no jurisdiction to hear and decide a suit that seeks to place Banco Filipino under receivership.


Thus, the courts jurisdiction could only have been invoked after the Monetary Board had taken action on the matter and only on the ground that the action taken was in excess of jurisdiction or with such grave abuse of discretion as to amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

NESTLE Phils. vs. Uniwide Sales (GR 174674)

Undeniably, supervening events have substantially changed the factual backdrop of this case. The Court thus defers to the competence and expertise of the SEC to determine whether, given the supervening events in this case, the SARP is no longer capable of implementation and whether the rehabilitation case should be terminated as a consequence.

Under the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction, courts will not determine a controversy where the issues for resolution demand the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience, and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact.

In other words, if a case is such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized training, and knowledge of an administrative body, relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before resort to the court is had even if the matter may well be within the latter’s proper jurisdiction.

The objective of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide the court in determining whether it should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has determined some question or some aspect of some question arising in the proceeding before the court.

ALEMARS Sibal and Sons vs. NLRC (GR 114761)

Since receivership proceedings have ceased and petitioners rehabilitation receiver and liquidator, Ledesma Saludo & Associates, has been given the imprimatur to proceed with corporate liquidation, the cited order of the Securities and Exchange Commission has been rendered functus officio. Thus, there is no legal impediment for the execution of the decision of the Labor Arbiter for the payment of separation pay.

Considering that petitioners monetary obligation to private respondent is long overdue and that petitioner has signified its willingness to comply with such obligation by entering into an agreement with private respondent as to the amount and manner of payment, petitioner can not delay satisfaction of private respondents claim. However, due to events subsequent to the filing of this petition, private respondent must present its claim with the rehabilitation receiver and liquidator of petitioner, subject to the rules on preference of credits.



Provisional Remedies: Preliminary Injunction

Australian Professional Realty Inc. vs. Municipality of Padre Garcia, Batangas (GR 183367)

A writ of preliminary injunction and a TRO are injunctive reliefs and preservative remedies for the protection of substantive rights and interests. An application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or TRO may be granted upon the filing of a verified application showing facts entitling the applicant to the relief demanded.

Essential to granting the injunctive relief is the existence of an urgent necessity for the writ in order to prevent serious damage. A TRO issues only if the matter is of such extreme urgency that grave injustice and irreparable injury would arise unless it is issued immediately. Under Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rule of Court, a TRO may be issued only if it appears from the facts shown by affidavits or by the verified application that great or irreparable injury would be inflicted on the applicant before the writ of preliminary injunction could be heard.

Thus, to be entitled to the injunctive writ, petitioners must show that (1) there exists a clear and unmistakable right to be protected; (2) this right is directly threatened by an act sought to be enjoined; (3) the invasion of the right is material and substantial; and (4) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious and irreparable damage.

The grant or denial of a writ of preliminary injunction in a pending case rests on the sound discretion of the court taking cognizance of the case, since the assessment and evaluation of evidence towards that end involves findings of fact left to the said court for its conclusive determination. Hence, the exercise of judicial discretion by a court in injunctive matters must not be interfered with, except when there is grave abuse of discretion.

Grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of writs of preliminary injunction implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction; or the exercise of power in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice or personal aversion amounting to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. The burden is thus on petitioner to show in his application that there is meritorious ground for the issuance of a TRO in his favor.

Sps. Arevalo vs. Planters Development Bank (GR 193415)

The Court rules that upon dismissal of the First Complaint by the trial court on 27 October 2009, the issue of whether the writ of injunction should issue has become moot. Although both parties failed to raise this particular argument in their submissions, we deny the instant Petition on this ground.

A case becomes moot and academic when there is no more actual controversy between the parties or useful purpose that can be served in passing upon the merits.

There remains no actual controversy in the instant Petition because the First Complaint has already been dismissed by the trial court. Upon its dismissal, the question of the non-issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction necessarily died with it.

PNB vs. Castalloy Technology Corp. (GR 178367)

In a line of cases, this Court has explained this rule and emphasized that a writ of preliminary injunction is issued to preserve the status quo ante, upon the applicants showing of two important requisite conditions, namely: (1) the right to be protected exists prima facie, and (2) the acts sought to be enjoined are violative of that right. It must be proven that the violation sought to be prevented would cause an irreparable injustice.


As regards to the element of irreparable injury which was determined by the trial court in view of the difference of P57,249,912.08 in the parties respective computations, this Court finds the same insufficient to support the requirement of injury in the issuance of an injunctive writs. An injury is considered irreparable if it is of such constant and frequent recurrence that no fair or reasonable redress can be had therefor in a court of law, or where there is no standard by which their amount can be measured with reasonable accuracy, that is, it is not susceptible of mathematical computation. The provisional remedy of preliminary injunction may only be resorted to when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences which cannot be remedied under any standard of compensation.

Unilever Phils. vs. CA (GR 119280)

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. A writ of preliminary injunction is generally based solely on initial and incomplete evidence. 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.

The issuance of a preliminary injunction rests entirely on the discretion of the court and is generally not interfered with except in cases of manifest abuse. There was no such abuse in the case at bar, especially because petitioner was given all the opportunity to oppose the application for injunction. The fact was, it failed to convince the court why the injunction should not be issued. Thus, in Santos v. Court of Appeals, we held that no grave abuse of discretion can be attributed to a judge or body issuing a writ of preliminary injunction where a party has not been deprived of its day in court as it was heard and it exhaustively presented all its arguments and defenses.

Buyco vs. Baraquia (GR 177486)

A writ of 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. It is merely a provisional remedy, adjunct to the main case subject to the latters outcome. It is not a cause of action in itself. Being an ancillary or auxiliary remedy, it is available during the pendency of the action which may be resorted to by a litigant to preserve and protect certain rights and interests therein pending rendition, and for purposes of the ultimate effects, of a final judgment in the case.

The writ is provisional because it constitutes a temporary measure availed of during the pendency of the action and it is ancillary because it is a mere incident in and is dependent upon the result of the main action.

It is well-settled that the sole object of a preliminary injunction, whether prohibitory or mandatory, is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard. It is usually granted when it is made to appear that there is a substantial controversy between the parties and one of them is committing an act or threatening the immediate commission of an act that will cause irreparable injury or destroy thestatus quo of the controversy before a full hearing can be had on the merits of the case.