Versoza v CA (299 SCRA 100)

Facts:

Fe Uson is the owner of a parcel of land in Sual, Pangasinan. She mortgaged the land to Wilfredo Versoza.  For failing to pay her obligation, Versoza foreclosed the property. The Provincial Sheriff set the foreclosure sale. 

To prevent from proceeding with the foreclosure sale, Uson filed for annulment of mortgage with a prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. The complaint of Uson was dismissed on the ground that it was not personally verified by Uson. The court granted Uson’s Motion for Reconsideration and filed an amended complaint with the required verification.

In the meantime, Versoza asked the Sheriff to proceed with the foreclosure. Uson requested that the sale be deferred since there was a pending action (annulment of mortgage) in court. However, the sale continued and the property was sold to Versoza.

After the redemption period, Sheriff issued the Sheriff’s Final Deed of Sale. The lot is now under Versoza’s name. Sometime after, Versoza sold the lot to Pilar Martinez.

Uson filed her an application for preliminary injunction in her 2^nd amended complaint impleading Martinez and the Register of Deeds of Pangasinan as defendants to the case.

Trial Court granted the injunction and ordered Martinez to cease and desist from performing acts of ownership over the lot.

Versoza and Martinez now claims that the status quo to be preserved refers to the point before the filing of the 2^nd complaint and before Martinez acquired the property. They also contend that consummated acts can no longer be restrained by injunction. The judge of the case clarified that the status quo being maintained in this case is the possession of Uson of the land and does not refer to Martinez being the registered owner of the lot.

Issue:

1.       Whether or not Uson is entitled to an injunctive writ.

2.       What is the status quo ante that the writ seeks to preserve?

3.       Wherher or not consummated acts can be restrained by injunction in this case?

Held:

1.       YES. The requisites for the issuance of an injunctive writ are:

                The invasion of the right is material and substantial;

The right of complainant is clear and unmistakable;

There is an urgent and permanent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.

The requisites are all present in the case. Uson had title to and possession of the property. She also claimed to have paid her obligation except for a nominal unpaid balance which she agrees to consign judicially. Hence, she has a clear and unmistakable right to protect her title and possession of the mortgaged property by enjoining the foreclosure sale.

2.       Status quo maintained is from Uson’s possession of the land. As defined, status quo is the last peaceful uncontested situation which precedes a controversy. Its preservation is the function of the injunctive suit.  When the amended complaint does not introduce new issues or causes of action, the suit is deemed to commence on the date when the original complaint was filed.

3.       YES. While the general rule is that injunction will not issue to restrain the performance of an act already done, there is an exception – where the acts performed after an injunction suit is brought,  a defendant may not as a matter of right proceed to perform the acts sought to restrained and then be heard to assert in a suit that the injunction will not lie because he has already performed the acts before the final hearing. 

The court said that, a court should not (by means of preliminary injunction) transfer the property from the possession of a party to another where legal title is in dispute and the party having possession of the property asserts its ownership. One who does the act sought to be restrained, does so at his own peril.

In the case, when Uson filed the complaint, she had title to and was asserting ownership of the lot. An action was brought to enjoin Versoza from proceeding with the sale but he continued it. In doing so, Versoza was acting at his own peril.