G.R. No. 46262 - NOVEMBER 1933 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 46262November 29, 1933 Cine Ligaya vs. Aljo Labrador, et al. G.R. No. 39902, 39903November 29, 1933 Dominador Raymundo vs. Luneta Motor Company, et al. G.R. No. 39110November 28, 1933 Antonia L. de Jesus, et al. vs. Cesar Syquia G.R. No. 37756November 28, 1933 In re: Severina Gonzalez Sinforoso Ona vs. Serapia de Gala G.R. No. 37694November 28, 1933 Ana Verena Vazquez Arias, et al. vs. Antonio Vazquez Arias, et al. G.R. No. 40140November 27, 1933 People of the Philippines vs. Anselmo V. Ignacio G.R. No. 39593November 27, 1933 Westminster Bank, Limited vs. K. Nasoor, Inc. G.R. No. 38443November 25, 1933 People of the Philippines vs. Elisea Ylagan G.R. No. 40373November 24, 1933 Joaquin S. Torres vs. Superintendent of San Ramon and Penal Farm G.R. No. 39552November 24, 1933 People of the Philippines vs. Lorenzo dela Cruz G.R. No. 39309November 24, 1933 Teh Le Kim vs. Philippine Aerial Taxi Co. G.R. No. 37913November 24, 1933 Rosalia Rosado vs. Director of Lands, et al. G.R. No. 38230November 21, 1933 People of the Philippines vs. Bitdu G.R. No. 36906November 21, 1933 In re: Frank H. Goulette Government of the Philippine Islands G.R. No. 38479November 20, 1933 Quintin de Borja vs. Francisco de Borja G.R. No. 37708November 20, 1933 Asuncion Nueva-España vs. Vicente Montelibano, et al. G.R. No. 38948November 18, 1933 People of the Philippines vs. Tomas Manansala, et al. G.R. No. 38741November 18, 1933 Cebu Mutual Building Loan Association vs. Juan Posadas G.R. No. 38544November 18, 1933 Paz de Santos, et al. vs. Bank of the Philippine Islands G.R. No. 38527, 38527November 18, 1933 People of the Philippines vs. Basilio Baccay, et al. G.R. No. 38226November 17, 1933 People of the Philippines vs. Luis Lapitan, et al. G.R. No. 37854November 17, 1933 Aleida Saavedra, et al. vs. Rafael Martinez, et al. G.R. No. 40386November 16, 1933 Anacleto Piit, et al. vs. Vicente B. de Lara, et al. G.R. No. 39706November 15, 1933 Cebu Transit Company, Inc. vs. Agustin Jereza G.R. No. 38187November 15, 1933 People of the Philippines vs. Mariano Buyson Lampa, et al. G.R. No. 38942November 14, 1933 People of the Philippines vs. Higino Lauas G.R. No. 37730November 14, 1933 Gregorio Araneta, Inc. vs. Lyric Film Exchange, Inc. G.R. No. 36923November 14, 1933 Emilio Gaston vs. Jose Hernaez, et al. G.R. No. 39630November 13, 1933 People of the Philippines vs. Leoncio Roxas G.R. No. 39033November 13, 1933 In re: Mateo L. Abella Santiago Sancho vs. Marciana Abella G.R. No. 38085November 13, 1933 Angela Montenegro vs. Consuelo Roxas de Gomez, et al. G.R. No. 37736November 13, 1933 People of the Philippines vs. Jose Matela, et al. G.R. No. 37565November 13, 1933 People of the Philippines vs. Luis J. Pegarum G.R. No. 37281November 10, 1933 W. S. Price, et al. vs. H. Martin G.R. No. 38925November 7, 1933 Yap Anton vs. Adelaida Cabulong G.R. No. 38810November 6, 1933 Tan Senguan & Company, Inc. vs. Philippine Trust Company G.R. No. 40624November 4, 1933 San Nicolas Transportation Company vs. Public Service Commission, et al. G.R. No. 38076November 4, 1933 People of the Philippines vs. Eduvigio Mendoza, et al. G.R. No. 38816November 3, 1933 Insular Drug Company Inc. vs. Philippine National Bank, et al. G.R. No. 38384November 3, 1933 Corazon R. Ch, et al. vs. La Urbana, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Cine Ligaya vs. Aljo Labrador, et al. Dominador Raymundo vs. Luneta Motor Company, et al. Antonia L. de Jesus, et al. vs. Cesar Syquia In re: Severina Gonzalez Sinforoso Ona vs. Serapia de Gala Ana Verena Vazquez Arias, et al. vs. Antonio Vazquez Arias, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Anselmo V. Ignacio Westminster Bank, Limited vs. K. Nasoor, Inc. People of the Philippines vs. Elisea Ylagan Joaquin S. Torres vs. Superintendent of San Ramon and Penal Farm People of the Philippines vs. Lorenzo dela Cruz Teh Le Kim vs. Philippine Aerial Taxi Co. Rosalia Rosado vs. Director of Lands, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Bitdu In re: Frank H. Goulette Government of the Philippine Islands Quintin de Borja vs. Francisco de Borja Asuncion Nueva-España vs. Vicente Montelibano, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Tomas Manansala, et al. Cebu Mutual Building Loan Association vs. Juan Posadas Paz de Santos, et al. vs. Bank of the Philippine Islands People of the Philippines vs. Basilio Baccay, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Luis Lapitan, et al. Aleida Saavedra, et al. vs. Rafael Martinez, et al. Anacleto Piit, et al. vs. Vicente B. de Lara, et al. Cebu Transit Company, Inc. vs. Agustin Jereza People of the Philippines vs. Mariano Buyson Lampa, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Higino Lauas Gregorio Araneta, Inc. vs. Lyric Film Exchange, Inc. Emilio Gaston vs. Jose Hernaez, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Leoncio Roxas In re: Mateo L. Abella Santiago Sancho vs. Marciana Abella Angela Montenegro vs. Consuelo Roxas de Gomez, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Jose Matela, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Luis J. Pegarum W. S. Price, et al. vs. H. Martin Yap Anton vs. Adelaida Cabulong Tan Senguan & Company, Inc. vs. Philippine Trust Company San Nicolas Transportation Company vs. Public Service Commission, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Eduvigio Mendoza, et al. Insular Drug Company Inc. vs. Philippine National Bank, et al. Corazon R. Ch, et al. vs. La Urbana, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 46262             November 29, 1933

CINE LIGAYA,petitioner,
vs.
ALJO LABRADOR, Judge of Firs Instance of Laguna, and LAZARUS JOSEPH,respondents.

Araneta, Zaragoza and Araneta for petitioner.
Vicente Bautista for respondents.

DIAZ,J.:

Petitioner commenced this certiorari proceeding to set aside the orders of the respondents judge deed July 3 and July 20, 1938, both which were issued in civil case No. 7102 of the Court of Firs Instance of Laguna, alleging that the same constitute an illegal and arbitrary act and an abuse of authority or jurisdiction by said judge.

In the above mentioned case petitioner filed a complaint on July 2, 1933, praying for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against the Lazarus Joseph in order to prevent the latter, his agents, attorneys and representatives from molesting and interfering with the petitioner in its possession of the cinematograph known as Cine Ligaya, in the municipality of Biñan, Province of Laguna, The respondent judge acceding to the prayer in the complaint that a writ of preliminary injunction issue against Lazarus Joseph while the case was not yet decided on the merits, issued ex parte the writ prayed for on petitioner's filing a bond in the amount of P1,000. In said writ he directed that until further order, Lazarus Joseph, his employees, attorneys and agents, and whoever might aid him should stop molesting, preventing or interfering with the petitioner or his new lessee, Jacinto Francisco, in the ownership, possession and use of the Cine Ligaya. The writ of preliminary injunction issued was duly served, Lazarus Joseph and his attorney, Vicente Bautista, being notified of the same at 12 o'clock noon on July 2, 1938. Instead of acting in accordance with requirements of said writ, Lazarus Joseph and his men went to the Cine Ligaya at 2 o'clock in the afternoon of the same day, July 2, 1938, and once there forced open the gates which had been closed with padlocks placed there by the petitioner through its representatives. This they did in spite of the opposition of the latter, who, nevertheless, stayed in the building without leaving it for a moment. In order to avoid disorder and acts of violence, petitioner had to apply to the Army authorities in Biñan for their help which they in fact gave, more on the verbal request of the respondent judge than on that of petitioner. It was through these means that petitioner was able to continue its possession and occupation of the cinematograph and to maintain the effectiveness of the writ. On the following day, which was Sunday, while petitioner was in possession of the cinematograph through its representatives and agents, the respondent judge, on verbal of Lazarus Joseph, and without the formal requisite of a sworn statement supporting the petition of said interested party or of notice to the petitioner, and without a trial having been held so as to give opportunity to all the parties to state their reasons, issued an order on the same day whereby the writ of preliminary injunction issued by him on the previous day was set aside and dissolved. Shortly thereafter, he gave a verbal order to allow Lazarus Joseph to enter the building and continue holding shows therein.

Petitioner, on and prior to the dates herein mentioned, was and had been and continues to be the owner of the Cine Ligaya. It leased the same to Lazarus Joseph on May 18, 1937 for a period of six months to be counted from July 1st of the said year, with the understanding that this period might be extended at the will of both parties. The second period of lease expired on June 30, 1938. Five days before the latter date, that is, on June 25, 1938, petitioner notified Lazarus Joseph of the fact that he should vacate the Cine Ligaya at the expiration of his term of lease on the 30th of said month and year. In the meantime, petitioner leased said cinematograph to Jacinto Francisco for two years from July 1, 1938. Around 7:30 in the morning of July 2, petitioner took possession of the cinematograph and was already occupying it at the time it filed the complaint above-mentioned with the effects and incidents hereinbefore stated.

The questions which the parties have raised in their pleadings may be summed up as follows: Did the respondent judge act with abuse of Jurisdiction in issuing the orders in question which required the restoration of the natural possession or possession in fact held by the petitioner to the respondent Lazarus Joseph, dissolving previously and summarily the writ of preliminary injunction he had issued the day before?

The law confers authority or jurisdiction on Courts of First Instance to issue writs of preliminary injunction ex parte and to dissolve those which they may have issued in said circumstances under prescribed limitations (sections 164, 166, 169, Act No. 190). It does no require that in order to annul or set aside a writ of preliminary injunction issued by a Court of First Instance, a notice be previously sent to plaintiff but it does require that, at least, a hearing be first held so that plaintiff may make such objections as he deems proper.lawphil.netNevertheless, even if a previous notice were required and even if there been no hearing on the petition to lift or dissolve the injunction granted, it cannot be said for that reason that the courts dissolving the injunction thus issued, acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. The courts have such jurisdiction and the respondent judge in the case now before us had authority to take cognizance of the case and also, of course, of all the incidents thereof. The failure to send notice or to hold a hearing as required by section 169 aforecited of Act No. 190 is not in any way jurisdictional so as to invalidate the proceedings of the court on the ground of lack or excess of jurisdiction.

At most, the respondent judge, in dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction which he had issued the day before, committed an error but not one involving lack of jurisdiction. It was only an error which should and can be remedied by appeal and not by certiorari. The respondent judge, however, did not limit himself to merely dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction issued by him, but ordered that the possession of the Cine Ligaya be delivered to the respondent, knowing that the petitioner had actual possession thereof. The law recognizes but one method of depriving one of possession of real estate with the view of giving the same to another. Said method is that set forth in section 80 of Act No. 190 as amended by Act No. 4115. This cannot be done summarily, but only by following the procedure marked out by said provision of law. In so doing, the judge undoubtedly acted in excess of jurisdiction, in fact, without any jurisdiction at all because the illegal detainer in the present case having taken place within one year, it is the justice of the peace court which had and has the power to determine and decide it. We cannot but reiterate on this occasion what we said in he case ofMediran vs. Villanueva(37 Phil., 752). We there said that in giving recognition to the action of forcible entry and detainer the purpose of the law is o protect the person who, in fact, has actual possession, and, in case of controverted right, it requires the parties to preserve thestatus quountil one or the other of them sees fit to invoke the decision of a court of competent jurisdiction upon the question of ownership; that it is but just that the person who has first acquired possession should remain in possession pending this decision; and that the parties cannot be permitted to engage in a petty warfare over the possession of the property because to do so would be dangerous to individual security and disturbing to social order.

In passing we may say that with regard to the observation made that the order of the respondent judge having been carried out on a Sunday, should be declared null and void, this fact does not destroy the validity of the challenged writ if it were valid for other reasons because there is no law in this jurisdiction which prohibits the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction on a Sunday or on other holidays.

But, as has been said, the respondent judge did not have authority or, jurisdiction to dispose of the question of possession in the summary manner that he had done, removing the petitioner from its possession of the Cine Ligaya in order to turn it over to Lazarus Joseph.

In view of all the foregoing, the respondent judge is held to have acted not only in excess of, but without, jurisdiction; and his challenged orders are, accordingly, null and void and without effect whatsoever. It is, therefore, ordered that things be restored to their former state at the time the respondent judge required the return of possession of the Cine Ligaya to Lazarus Joseph; or, in other words, let said possession be restored to the petitioner, without prejudice to the final prosecution of case No. 7102 above-referred to.lawphil.net

Costs shall be assessed against respondent Lazarus Joseph. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Laurel and Concepcion, JJ., concur.