G.R. No. L-14231. April 28, 1962. CATALINO BALBECINO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. WENCESLAO M. ORTEGA, ETC., ET AL., respondents.
FACTS

Paulino Acosta previously filed a complaint to quiet title and recover possession of a parcel of land against Justo Balbecino (Civil Case No. 758). Acosta claimed ownership by purchase in 1926 and alleged that Justo was his tenant who later refused to deliver the harvest. Justo, in his answer, asserted the land was owned by his parents, who acquired it in 1924. The trial court ruled in favor of Acosta, declaring him the owner and ordering Justo to surrender possession and pay indemnity. This decision became final and executory after the Court of Appeals dismissed Justo’s petition for certiorari. A writ of execution was issued, and the sheriff placed Acosta in actual possession of the land on December 21, 1956. Justo’s subsequent attempts to regain possession failed, leading to contempt proceedings.
After these failed attempts, the petitioners, who are the brothers and sisters of Justo Balbecino, initiated a new action against Acosta before the same court. They sought to be declared owners of the land and to have the writ of possession issued to Acosta declared null and void. In their complaint, they prayed for a preliminary injunction to restrain Acosta from occupying and cultivating the land pending the case. Acosta, in his answer, defended his ownership and possession as settled by the final judgment in Civil Case No. 758, alleging the new suit was a tool to circumvent that decision. He counter-prayed for a preliminary injunction against the petitioners to protect his possession.

ISSUE

Did the trial court commit a grave abuse of discretion in granting Acosta’s application for a preliminary injunction to maintain his possession during the pendency of the new suit filed by the Balbecino siblings?

RULING

No, the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the principle of respecting actual possession acquired under a final and executory judgment, especially to prevent circumvention of a settled judicial decree. The court examined the undisputed facts: Acosta’s ownership and right to possession were conclusively adjudicated in Civil Case No. 758, a decision that attained finality. Pursuant to the writ of execution from that final judgment, Acosta was duly placed in actual possession by the sheriff. This actual possession was a fact at the time the petitioners commenced their action.
The petitioners, siblings of the defeated party Justo, filed their opposition to the sheriff’s return of possession belatedly, which the sheriff properly disregarded. Their protest, however, ironically confirmed Acosta’s actual possession. The trial court, in granting Acosta’s plea for a preliminary injunction, acted to preserve the status quo and prevent disorder by maintaining the possession legally established under the final judgment until the new action could be resolved on its merits. The court rightly perceived the new suit as a potential eleventh-hour attempt to undermine the prior final decision, given that Justo had previously claimed absolute ownership for himself, not for his siblings or parents. Therefore, the order granting the injunction to Acosta was a proper exercise of judicial discretion to prevent a manifest injustice and uphold the integrity of a final judgment, not a capricious or whimsical act constituting grave abuse of discretion. The petition for certiorari was correctly denied.