Republic of the PhilippinesMunicipal Trial Court in Cities

Branch 3Iloilo City

---

UNI-ASIA PROPERTIES, INC. Plaintiff,

-versus – Civil Case No. 16-14

For : Ejectment SPS. AURELIO ALMENDRAL and DamagesAND MELENDE ALMENDRAL,

Defendants, x--------------------------------------x

ORDER

This resolves plaintiff’s application for preliminary mandatory injunction in the instant ejectment case. From the pleadings and evidence submitted by the parties, the following facts are undisputed:

Plaintiff is the owner of Lot Nos. 2835-A covered by TCT No. 095-2010001400 and Lot No. 2835-C covered by TCT No. T – 095-2010001401, with an area of 9,347 sq. meters and 529 square meters, respectively, all located in Barangay Jibao-an Sur, Mandurriao, Iloilo City. Defendants spouses Almendral have been planting rice on a portion of one (1) hectare of the said properties. Defendant Melende C. Almendral, as plaintiff, filed with the DARAB a case against Uni - Asia Properties, Inc., together with other parties, as defendants, for Annulment of Documents and Titles, Declaration of Rights of Parties, Maintenance and Damages , which the DARAB dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the land was issued by the DAR an Order of Conversion from agricultural to residential. Plaintiff was issued a development permit for the development of a residential subdivision of

a contiguous area of 49.1834 hectares, including the subject lots. There is an on-going residential development in the adjoining area by plaintiff and Henber Development Corp., pursuant to their joint venture agreement, but the same stopped in the area occupied by defendants, because the latter would not vacate and have prevented entry by plaintiff in the said portion of its titled properties.

A case for ejectment (unlawful detainer) with Damages was filed by plaintiff on March 24, 2014 and prior to the conduct of the pre- trial, plaintiff filed a motion/application for issuance of the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, citing Section 15, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. The motion and application was heard and both parties presented evidence on the said incident. An ocular inspection on November 5, 2014 was conducted upon defendants’ motion and on November 25, 2014 the incident was deemed submitted for resolution.

After evaluating the facts established in this incident for issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, the Court has come to the conclusion that plaintiff is being denied entry by defendants from developing the area of one (1) hectare, more or less, in their possession, even with knowledge that plaintiff has valid existing titles thereto, and the lots have been converted into residential by no less than the DAR which has the exclusive jurisdiction on petition for conversion. With the conversion of the land into residential, there is no more hindrance to plaintiff’s right to develop the same, more so with an approved residential subdivision and a development permit.

What right then do the defendants have to prevent plaintiff from entering the property for the purpose of developing it in accordance with the approved subdivision plan and development permit?

At this stage of the proceeding, the evidence submitted to the Court shows that defendants do not possess any defensible right. Clearly, from the documents submitted before the Court, i.e., the Absolute Deed of Sale between Galila and defendants dated May 29, 1992, Waiver of Rights executed by the Deloestes in favor of defendants dated May 29, 1992, the document denominated as an Acknowledgment dated May 29, 1992 executed by Honorato and Trinidad Galila, and the

receipt for a sum of PhP 100,000.00 from the Spouses Almendral by Spouses Galila dated May 26, 1992, all executed simultaneously, it is beyond question that they were executed in circumvention of agrarian laws, and therefore illegal, and have never bestowed or conferred any legal right to defendants. In the case of Maylem vs. Ellano, et. als., G.R. No. 162721, July 13, 2009, it was held:

“More importantly, as holder of an emancipation patent, Abad is bound by the proscription against transfers of land awards to third persons, which is prohibited by law.  Paragraph 13 of P.D. No. 27 materially states:

  Title to land acquired pursuant to this Decree or the Land Reform Program of the Government shall not be transferable except by hereditary succession or to the Government in accordance with the provisions of this Decree, the Code of Agrarian Reform and other existing laws and regulations.

 This prohibition has been carried over to Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657, which provides:

           Section 27. Transferability of Awarded Lands. – Lands

acquired by beneficiaries under this Act may not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to the government, or to the LBP (Land Bank of the Philippines), or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years: Provided, however, That the children or the spouse of the transferor, shall have a right to repurchase the land from the Government or LBP within a period of two (2) years. x  x x

 Hence, even if we must assume that Abad for a consideration

had waived his rights to the property when he surrendered possession thereof to petitioner, such waiver is nevertheless ineffective and void, because it amounts to a prohibited

transfer of the land award. As the Court held in Lapanday Agricultural & Development Corp. v. Estita, the waiver of rights and interests over landholdings awarded by the government is invalid for being violative of agrarian reform laws.  And inTorres v. Ventura the Court declared that the object of agrarian reform is to vest in the farmer-beneficiary, to the exclusion of others, the rights to possess, cultivate and enjoy the landholding for himself; hence, to insure his continued possession and enjoyment thereof, he is prohibited by law to make any form of transfer except only to the government or by hereditary succession”

Hence, defendants’ possession is that of a squatter because no matter how long they are in the subject portion did not ripen into a lawful one. Said the Supreme Court in D’Oro Land realty Dev’t Corp. vs. Caunan, et. als., G.R. No. 169447, February 26, 2007:

“It may thus be concluded from the foregoing that respondents are mere squatters on the properties. They are trespassers who, under the law, enjoy no possessory rights. This is notwithstanding the length of time that they may have physically occupied the lots; they are deemed to have entered the same in bad faith, such that the nature of their possession is presumed to have retained the same character throughout their occupancy.

In Bañez v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that a squatter has no right of possession that may be prejudiced by his eviction:

What rights of respondent Pio Arcilla were prejudiced? The Court of Appeals found that Pio Arcilla "makes no pretense that he entered into and built his land upon appellee PHHC’s land with the consent of the latter." Pio Arcilla was therefore, a trespasser, or a squatter, he being a person who settled or located on land, inclosed or uninclosed with ‘no bona fide claim or color of title and without consent of the owner.’ He

began his material possession of the lot in bad faith, knowing that he did not have a right thereto, and it is presumed that his possession continued to be enjoyed in the same character in which it was acquired, i.e. in bad faith until the contrary is proved. x x x A squatter can have no possessory rights whatsoever, and his occupancy of the land is only at the owner’s sufferance, his acts are merely tolerated and cannot affect the owner’s possession. The squatter is necessarily bound to an implied promise, that he will vacate upon demand.”

Suffice it to state that no valid right springs from an illegal act. Since defendants have failed to show by their evidence that they have a valid right to prevent plaintiff from developing the portion in their possession, the Court has no recourse but to grant the injunction prayed for by plaintiff.

It may be emphasized that time is very important in residential developments. Delay will likely result in financial loss to the developer. In the present case, plaintiff is prone to violation of its commitment to its joint venture partner because the development stopped at the portion being possessed by defendants. It stands to shoulder the losses the venture may suffer due to the withholding by defendants of the area in controversy. Unless it is immediately remedied by the issuance of injunction, such losses will continue to pile up to the prejudice of plaintiff.

A writ of mandatory injunction is granted upon showing that (1) the complainant has a clear legal right; (2) such has been violated and the invasion of the right is material and substantial; and (3) there is an urgent and permanent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. (Pelejo v. CA, L-60800, October 18, 1982, 117 SCRA 665; Semirara Coal Corp. vs. HGL Devt. Corp., G.R. No. 166854, Dec. 6, 2006).

Here, plaintiff’s right to the possession of the disputed portion has been duly established. It has the titles to the properties, and therefore, entitled to possession thereof as an attribute of ownership. That right of

ownership and possession have been violated by defendants whose occupation have been illegal since their entry. The urgency and necessity for the issuance of a writ of mandatory injunction cannot be denied, considering that plaintiff stands to suffer material and substantial injury in the form of financial losses as a result of petitioner’s continuous intrusion into the subject properties without any valid right. Defendants’ continued occupation of the disputed portion of plaintiff’s properties not only resulted in the deprivation of the latter’s right of the use and possession thereof but also affects the business operations of the joint venture. The damage to plaintiff’s business, if not immediately addressed, will result in irreparable injury because no fair and reasonable redress can be had by plaintiff insofar as the damage to its goodwill and business reputation is concerned, particularly, to its joint venture partner.

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing consideration, let a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction ISSUE against defendants spouses Aurelio and Melende Almendral, and all persons acting under their control, direction, instruction and supervision, or working in the subject one-hectare portion, more or less, of Lot Nos. 2835-A covered by TCT No. 095-2010001400 and Lot No. 2835-C covered by TCT No. T – 095-2010001401, with an area of 9,347 sq. meters and 529 square meters, respectively, all located in Barangay Jibao-an Sur, Mandurriao, Iloilo City, COMMANDING them to vacate the said portion and turn over the possession thereof to plaintiff.

The City Sheriff, or any of his Deputy, is ordered to immediately implement the writ upon posting by plaintiff of an injunction bond in the amount of PhP 500,000.00.

SO ORDERED.