BUYCO V BARAQUIA

Petioner: PURISIMO BUYCO

Respondent: NELSON BARAQUIA
Cittion: G.R. No. 177486
Date of Promulgation: December 21, 2009
Ponente: Carpio Morales, J

FACTS:
 Baraquia filed a complaint before the RTC of Iloilo against the Buycos for the establishment of a
permanent right of way, injunction and damages with preliminary injunction and temporary
restraining order, to enjoin the Buycos from closing off a private road within their property which
was used by him to access his poultry farm from the public highway.
 The petitioner, Buyco, substituted The Buycos during the pendency of the case (the original
petitioners died).
 On February 14, 2007, RTC dismissed the complaint for failure to establish the requisites for right
of way under Art. 649 and 650 of the Civil Code, thus, the preliminary injunction as lifted.
 A notice of appeal was filed by Baraquia, while Buyco filed a notice of partial appeal on the non-
award of the prayer for damages.
 Baraquia filed a motion to cite Buyco and his brother in contempt for closing the road which
violated the writ of preliminary injunction.
 On March 13, 2007, RTC resolved the issue by saying that the writ of preliminary injunction
remained to be valid, efficacious and obligatory, when Buyco closed the road on March 1, which
is an indirect contempt of court.
 Petitioner moved for reconsideration contending that a preliminary injunction, once quashed,
ceases to exist, and that they cannot be held guilty of indirect contempt by a mere motion.
 April 18, 2008: The trial court set aside the March 13 Resolution and granted the petitioners
motion for reconsideration stating that there must be a verified petition for them to be held in
contempt.
o RE: lifetime of the preliminary injunction – the matter of whether a writ of preliminary
injunction remains valid until the decision annulling the same attains finality is not firmly
entrenched in jurisprudence.
 Hence, this petition for review.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the lifting of a writ of preliminary injunction due to the dismissal of the complaint
is immediately executor, even if the dismissal of the complaint is pending appeal. (YES)

HELD:
A writ of preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior
to the judgment or final order, requiring a party or a court, agency or a person to refrain from a particular
act or acts. It is merely a provisional remedy , adjunct to the main case subject to the latters outcome. It
is not a cause of action in itself. Being an ancillary or auxiliary remedy, it is available during the pendency
of the action which may be resorted to by a litigant to preserve and protect certain rights and interests
therein pending rendition, and for purposes of the ultimate effects, of a final judgment in the case.
The writ is provisional because it constitutes a temporary measure availed of during the pendency of the
action and it is ancillary because it is a mere incident in and is dependent upon the result of the main
action.

It is well-settled that the sole object of a preliminary injunction, whether prohibitory or mandatory, is to
preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard . It is usually granted when it is made to
appear that there is a substantial controversy between the parties and one of them is committing an act
or threatening the immediate commission of an act that will cause irreparable injury or destroy the status
quo of the controversy before a full hearing can be had on the merits of the case .
Indubitably, in the case at bar, the writ of preliminary injunction was granted by the lower court upon
respondents showing that he and his poultry business would be injured by the closure of the subject road.
After trial, however, the lower court found that respondent was not entitled to the easement of right of
way prayed for, having failed to prove the essential requisites for such entitlement, hence, the writ was
lifted.

The present case having been heard and found dismissible as it was in fact dismissed, the writ of
preliminary injunction is deemed lifted, its purpose as a provisional remedy having been served, the
appeal therefrom notwithstanding. There being no indication that the appellate court issued an injunction
in respondents favor, the writ of preliminary injunction issued on December 1, 1999 by the trial court was
automatically dissolved upon the dismissal of Civil Case No. 26015.

WHEREFORE , the petition is GRANTED . The Resolution dated April 18, 2007 of the trial court is REVERSED
. The writ of preliminary injunction which Branch 39 of the Iloilo Regional Trial Court issued on December
1, 1999 was automatically dissolved upon its dismissal by Decision of February 14, 2007 of Civil Case No.
26015 .

BUYCO V BARAQUIA
Petioner: PURISIMO BUYCO
Respondent: NELSON BARAQUIA
Cittion: G.R. No. 177486
Date of Promulgation: December 21, 2009
Ponente: Carpio Morales, J

FACTS:
 Justice JBL Reyes and Dr. Edmundo Reyes (brothers) executed a contract leasing a parcel of land
along Taft Avenue to Manila Builders, subject to certain conditions.
 However, Manila Builders violated the conditions. And so, the Heirs of JBL Reyes and the Heirs of
Dr. Edmundo Reyes sent notice to Manila Builders terminating the lease and demanding that they
vacate and surrender the premises.
 The Heirs filed with the MTC a complaint for unlawful detainer based on the breach of contract
of lease. The MTC ruled in their favor.
 The Heirs filed with the MTC a motion for execution of the judgment of eviction.
 Meanwhile, Manila Builders appealed to the RTC. However, the appeal was dismissed for failure
to file an appeal memorandum on time. So, Manila Builders elevated the case to the CA.
 The MTC granted the Heirs’ motion for execution.
  The CA allowed the withdrawal of the appeal filed by Manila Builders. Simultaneously, Manila
Builders filed with the RTC an action for annulment of the ejectment judgment, with prayer for a
temporary restraining order and or preliminary injunction, but this was denied.
 Manila Builders filed with the CA a petition for certiorari and mandamus questioning the RTC’s
denial of its application for injunctive relief.
 The CA issued a resolution restraining the enforcement of the writ of execution.
 The RTC dismissed the action for annulment of judgment on the ground that Manila Builders’
remedy was appeal, which when withdrawn, was effectively abandoned.
 The CA promulgated a decision setting aside the decision of the MTC.
 Manila Builders filed an urgent ex-parte motion for execution pending appeal.
 The Heirs filed a petition for review on certiorari the decision of the CA with the SC, and an urgent
motion for execution, with motion to defer consideration due to the pendency of their petition
with the SC.
 The CA granted the motion for execution, and issued a resolution appointing a special sheriff to
execute the decision.
 The Heirs were evicted from the premises and Manila Builders was restored to possession of the
property.

ISSUE: