Maria Fatima O.

Alcoy
FACTS:

 Rev. Claudio R. Cortez, Sr. (Rev. Cortez), a missionary by vocation engaged in

humanitarian and charitable activities, established an orphanage and school in Punta
Verde, Palaui Island, San Vicente, Sta. Ana, Cagayan.

 He claimed that since 1962, he has been in peaceful possession of about 50 hectares of
land located in the western portion of Palaui Island in Sitio Siwangag, Sta. Ana, Cagayan
which he, with the help of Aetas and other people under his care, cleared and developed
for agricultural purposes in order to support his charitable, humanitarian and missionary
works.

 On May 22, 1967, President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Proclamation No. 201 reserving
for military purposes a parcel of the public domain situated in Palaui Island, subject, to
private rights if there be any.
 More than two decades later or on August 16, 1994, President Fidel V. Ramos issued Proclamation No. 447 declaring
Palaui Island and the surrounding waters situated in the Municipality of Sta. Ana, Cagayan as marine reserve.

 On June 13, 2000, Rev. Cortez filed a Petition for Injunction with Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary
Mandatory Injunction against Rogelio C. Biñas (Biñas) in his capacity as Commanding Officer of the Philippine
Naval Command in Port San Vicente, Sta. Ana, Cagayan.

 According to him, some members of the Philippine Navy, upon orders of Biñas, disturbed his peaceful and lawful
possession when on March 15, 2000, they commanded him and his men, through the use of force and intimidation, to
vacate the area. Rev. Cortez and his men were constrained to leave the area.

 The action seeks preliminary mandatory injunction ordering Biñas to restore to him possession and to not disturb the
same.
 ISSUE:

Whether Rev. Cortez is entitled to a writ of mandatory injunction.

 RULING:

No.

Two requisites must concur for injunction to issue: (1) there must be a right to be protected and (2) the acts
against which the injunction is to be directed are violative of said right. It is necessary that such right must have
been established with absolute certainty.

In this case, Rev. Cortez relies heavily on his asserted right of possession. It must be emphasized that only things
and rights which are susceptible of being appropriated may be the object of possession. Rev. Cortez failed to
show that the area he claims is not part of the public domain or has been declared alienable and disposable when
Rev. Cortez started to occupy the same. As such, it must be considered as still inalienable public domain. Being
such, it cannot be appropriated and therefore not a proper subject of possession under Article 530 of the Civil
Code. Viewed in this light, Rev. Cortez’ claimed right of possession has no leg to stand on. His possession of the
subject area, even if the same be in the concept of an owner or no matter how long, cannot produce any legal
effect in his favor since the property cannot be lawfully possessed in the first place.
 Thus, Rev. Cortez is not entitled to the writ of mandatory injunction as he failed to
conclusively establish his claimed right over the subject portion of Palaui Island.
FACTS:

 A commercial and residential building project located at Epifanio Delos Santos Avenue comer
Fordham Street in Wack Wack Village, Mandaluyong City, was proposed by AMA Land, Inc.
(AMALI). On March 18, 1996, AMALI notified Wack-Wack Residents’ Assoc., Inc. (WWRAI), a
registered homeowners' association of Wack Wack Village, of its intention to use Fordham Street as an
access road and staging area of the project. As AMALI received no response, the former temporarily
enclosed the job site and set up a field office along Fordham Street.
 On May 8, 1996, AMALI then filed a petition before the RTC wherein it seeks the temporary use of
Fordham Street belonging to WWRAI as an access road to AMALI's construction site of its AMA Tower
project pursuant to Article 656 of the Civil Code, and to establish a permanent easement of right of way in
its favor over a portion of Fordham Street pursuant to Article 649 of the Civil Code. Aside from this,
AMALI is also praying, among others, for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction directing WWRAI
to allow AMALI to use Fordham Street as an access road and staging area which the RTC granted.

 In 1998, due to financial crisis, the construction of the project was put on hold and AMALI was
constrained to finish merely the basement. 

 As AMALI resumed the project, WWRAI filed an "Urgent Motion to Set for Hearing" its application for
temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction.
 ISSUE:
Whether WWRAI is entitled to a temporary restraining order and/or a writ of preliminary injunction.

 RULING:
No.

Pursuant to Section 3, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, to be entitled to the injunctive writ, the petitioner
must show that: (1) there exists a clear and unmistakable right to be protected; (2) this right is directly
threatened by the 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.

In this case, the alleged noise and dust that may be caused by the construction is the natural consequence
thereof. However, this annoyance that may be brought by the construction is not permanent in nature but
is merely temporary and once the building is completed, the right to live in a peaceful, quiet and safe
environment will be restored without noise and dust. As to the allegations that the said members' privacy
may be invaded for the reason that they may be photographed or videotaped without their knowledge,
these fears are merely speculative and cannot be taken into consideration. As admitted by WWRAI's
witness, the construction activity is suspended, hence, there is nothing to restrain. There is no urgent and
paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.
WWRAI was unable to convincingly demonstrate a clear and unmistakable right that must be
protected by the injunctive writ. The apprehensions of its members are, as correctly ruled by the RTC,
speculative and insufficient to substantiate the element of serious and irreparable damage.

Thus, WWRAI is not entitled to a temporary restraining order and/or a writ of preliminary injunction.