Republic of the Philippines

Municipal Trial Court in Cities

Branch 3
Iloilo City
--UNI-ASIA PROPERTIES, INC.
Plaintif,
-versus
16-14

Civil Case No.

SPS. AURELIO ALMENDRAL

Damages
AND MELENDE ALMENDRAL,
Defendants,
x--------------------------------------x

For : Ejectment
and

ORDER
This resolves plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs 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

DOro Land realty Devt 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 Baez 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
PHHCs 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 owners sufferance, his acts
are merely tolerated and cannot affect the

owners 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, plaintiffs 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 petitioners continuous
intrusion into the subject properties without any valid right.
Defendants continued occupation of the disputed portion of
plaintiffs properties not only resulted in the deprivation of
the latters right of the use and possession thereof but also
affects the business operations of the joint venture. The
damage to plaintiffs 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. 0952010001400 and Lot No. 2835-C covered by TCT No. T 0952010001401, 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.