8/19/2019 18 KNECHT VS CA

1/1

18

RENE KNECHT, petitioner,vs.THE COURT OF APPEALS, DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, LUZ RUBIO, ELIZABETH KEON, UNITED COCONUT

PLANTERS BANK, DBP GOVERNOR RECIO GARCIA, ET AL., respondents.

Facts:

-Knecht and Garcia bought a parcel of land which includes the Tower Hotel whicj was mortgaged to !". Knecht and Garcia assumed

the mortgage and !" approved the assumption.

-!" foreclosed the mortgage. The propert# was subse$uentl# sold at a public auction. !" won as the highest bidder and certificateof sale was issued. !" leased the Hotel to %ubio.

-Knecht filed with the trial court an action for the nullification of the foreclosure sale with preliminar# injunction. &n his pra#er for theissuance of a writ of preliminar# injunction, Knecht as'ed the trial court, among other reliefs, to stop the running of the one-#earredemption period and to restore to him the possession and management of the Tower Hotel and all its e$uipment and facilities.

-The one-#ear period e(pired without the petitioner e(ercising said right and without the trial court issuing a writ of preliminar# injunctionto restrain the running of the redemption period.

-)ubse$uentl#, the trial court ruled that the petition for the issuance of a preliminar# mandator# injunction to restore the possession and

management of the disputed propert# in his favor is hereb# denied.

-Knech filed a petition for certiorari with preliminar# injunction with the *+. *+ denied

&ssue:

writ of preliminar# mandator# injunction /"0&1 must be issued

%uling:

o. The "0& must not be issued

-For petitioner to be entitled to the injunctive writ, he must show that there e(ists a right to be protected and the facts against which the

injunction is directed are violative of said right

"urpose of "0&:to preserve the status quo, which is the last actual peaceable uncontested status that preceded the pending controvers#

-it is a settled rule in this jurisdiction that a "0& is not proper where its purpose is to ta'e propert# out of one2s possession and placethe same in the hands of another without a prima facie showing of the title of the latter 

The status quo before petitioner filed his complaint for nullification of foreclosure sale was that respondent !" was in possession ofthe Tower Hotel. Thus, it cannot be said that petitioner Knecht was in actual, peaceful and uncontested possession of the Tower Hotelat the time he filed his complaint with the trial court.

)* ruled that the act of Knecht of registering a notice of lis pendens over the disputed propert# with the %egistr# of eeds, which notice

will bind an# prospective bu#er to the outcome of the civil case pending before the trial court ade$uatel# protected of whatever rightsKnecht ma# still have over the Tower Hotel.