EMERITA MUNOZ vs ATTY.

YABUT

G.R. No. 142676; June 06, 2011

An order granting a preliminary injunction, whether mandatory or prohibitory, is interlocutory and unappealable.

[OVERVIEW]

Munoz alleges that she was deprived of possession over her property by spouses Chan. She thus filed a forcible
entry case with the MeTC with a prayer for preliminary injunction, which was granted. The writ was contested on
appeal before the RTC, who denied the writ and dismissed the case. The same was affirmed by the CA.

The SC ruled that the issuance of the writ by the MeTC was improper as forcible entry proceedings are summary in
nature, thus, interlocutory orders are prohibited. However, the dismissal of the forcible entry case was improper, and
thus, the case was remanded to the MeTC for further proceedings.

FACTS:

Muñoz was acquired a TCT over the subject property. However, in a Deed of Absolute Sale, Muñoz purportedly sold
the subject property to Emilia M. Ching, who then sold the subject property to spouses Go. Meanwhile, the spouses
Go obtained a loan from BPI Family, and when they defaulted, the property became BPI Family’s, who later sold the
same to spouses Chan.

During this time, the RTC found that Muñoz's signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale was forged and the same was
never sold to Emilia M. Ching; and that the spouses Go were not innocent purchasers for value of the subject
property.

The spouses Chan, who bought the subject property from BPI Family, then came forward and opposed the execution
of the RTC’s judgement. The spouses Chan contended that the final judgment of the RTC could not be executed
against them since they were not parties to the case. (di pa ni mao ang case guys, backstory plang ni)

Then, Muñoz instituted before the MeTC a Complaint for Forcible Entry with Prayer for Preliminary Mandatory
Injunction against spouses Chan and Atty. Yabut. Muñoz alleged that she was forcibly evicted from her peaceful
possession of the property by Atty Yabut and 20 armed men.

Spouses Chan and Atty. Yabut denied Muñoz's allegations, claiming they were the true owners of the property and
that they never used force to remove Munoz from the property.

LOWER COURT’S RULING:

MeTC- granted Muñoz's prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, restoring possession of
the subject property to Muñoz.

RTC and CA- reversed the MeTC’s decision granting the writ and dismissed the case.

ISSUE:

WON the granting of the writ of preliminary injunction by the MeTC was proper.

HELD:

NO.

The present case is a forcible entry case and is governed by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. The Rule
prohibits petitions for certiorari, like a number of other pleadings, in order to prevent unnecessary delays and to
expedite the disposition of cases.
Interlocutory orders are those that determine incidental matters that do not touch on the merits of the case or put an
end to the proceedings. An order granting a preliminary injunction, whether mandatory or prohibitory, is
interlocutory and unappealable.

The MeTC is precluded from granting to Muñoz relief, whether preliminary or final, that will give her possession of the
subject property. Based on the same reason, Muñoz can no longer insist on the reinstatement of the MeTC Order
granting a preliminary mandatory injunction that puts her in possession of the subject property during the course of
the trial. Muñoz though may recover damages if she is able to prove wrongful deprivation of possession of the subject
property.

(The SC then said, ngano gidismiss mn ang forcible entry case before the RTC na ang gi appeal rman kay ang
preliminary injunction which was issued by the MeTC. They never even touched on the forcible entry issues itself. So
altho the preliminary injunction was improper, the case should be remanded to the MeTC for further proceedings on
the forcible entry case. Bogo RTC.)

FALLO: DIRECT the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 33 of Quezon City to reinstate Emerita Muñoz's complaint for
forcible entry.