Primary Holding

The Supreme Court partially granted the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision to reinstate the original writ of preliminary injunction (maintaining status quo). However, the Supreme Court recognized the petitioner's need for temporary easement for construction purposes under Article 656 of the Civil Code and remanded the case to the trial court to determine the proper indemnity for this temporary right of way. The installation of power lines was deemed a permanent easement not covered by the temporary easement provisions.

Background

Petitioner owned landlocked parcels adjacent to Respondent's Tali Beach Subdivision, needing access through the subdivision roads. Respondent initially allowed access but later barricaded the property. Petitioner sought a right of way and preliminary injunction. The trial court initially granted a preliminary injunction to remove barricades and allow passage. This was later amended to include passage for contractors, equipment, and power line installation.

Facts

• 1. Respondent owns Tali Beach Subdivision.
• 2. Petitioner owns lots within and adjacent to the subdivision, with the adjacent lots landlocked and bounded by the subdivision and the China Sea.
• 3. Access to Petitioner's landlocked parcels requires passage through Respondent's subdivision roads.
• 4. Petitioner offered P10,000 for easement, which Respondent deemed inadequate and refused.
• 5. Respondent barricaded the entrance to Petitioner's property, preventing access.
• 6. Petitioner filed a Complaint for Right of Way with Prayer for Preliminary Prohibitive Injunction in RTC.
• 7. Petitioner used subdivision roads for heavy equipment and construction materials, prompting Respondent to challenge the preliminary injunction.
• 8. The amended preliminary injunction allowed access for contractors, equipment, and power line installation.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. Inherent in the right of way (Art. 649 NCC) is the right to develop the property (Art. 428 NCC).
• 2. Passage of heavy equipment and construction materials is granted by Article 656 of the Civil Code.
• 3. He was seeking right of way not just for visits, but also for development, use, and enjoyment of his property.
• 4. The amended writ was necessary to allow him to effectively exercise his right of way and develop his property.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. The original writ only maintained status quo, which was limited to the Petitioner and his household’s access for visits, not construction activities.
• 2. The amended writ exceeded the status quo and prematurely adjudicated on the merits of the right of way case.
• 3. Granting passage for construction workers and equipment was not part of the initial status quo and went beyond the scope of a preliminary injunction.
• 4. The amended writ improperly granted rights associated with a permanent easement before the main case on right of way was decided.

Issues

• 1. Did the Court of Appeals err in setting aside the amended writ of preliminary injunction and reinstating the original writ?
• 2. Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the amended writ of preliminary injunction?
• 3. Was there a legal basis for the amended writ of injunction, particularly concerning access for construction and power line installation?
• 4. Does the original writ's right of passage extend beyond the petitioner and his household to include contractors, equipment, and construction materials?

Ruling

• 1. The Supreme Court found the Court of Appeals correct in setting aside the amended writ as it went beyond maintaining the status quo.
• 2. The original writ correctly preserved the status quo, which was limited to access for the Petitioner and his household for visits.
• 3. The amended writ improperly expanded the scope of the preliminary injunction by including construction activities and power line installation, which were not part of the status quo.
• 4. However, the Court recognized the Petitioner's right to a temporary easement under Article 656 for construction purposes, after payment of indemnity, but this is distinct from the preliminary injunction and permanent easement for right of way.
• 5. The installation of power lines is considered a permanent easement, not covered by Article 656 temporary easement or preliminary injunction.
• 6. The case was remanded to the trial court to determine the proper indemnity for the temporary easement for construction activities, consistent with Article 656.

Doctrines

• 1. Status Quo in Preliminary Injunction: The objective of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the last actual, peaceable, and uncontested situation preceding the controversy to prevent irreparable injury and maintain the parties' relative positions pending the resolution of the main case.
• 2. Temporary Easement (Article 656, Civil Code): If indispensable for construction, repair, improvement, alteration, or beautification, a temporary easement of right of way may be granted after payment of indemnity for damages to the servient estate. "Indispensable" is interpreted with reasonable flexibility, not strictly literally.
• 3. Permanent Easement (Article 649, Civil Code): Right of way demanded by the owner of an estate surrounded by other immovables with no adequate outlet to a public highway, granted after payment of proper indemnity. This is distinct from the temporary easement for construction.

Key Excerpts

• 1. "Status quo is the last actual, peaceable and uncontested situation which precedes a controversy."
• 2. "In our view, however, 'indispensable' in this instance is not to be construed literally. Great inconvenience is sufficient."

Precedents Cited

• 1. Cortez-Estrada v. Heirs of Domingo Samut/Antonia Samut, G.R. No. 154407: Cited for the principle that the objective of preliminary injunction is to preserve status quo.
• 2. Medina v. Greenfield Development Corporation, G.R. No. 140228: Cited for the principle that the objective of preliminary injunction is to preserve status quo.
• 3. First Global Realty and Development Corporation v. San Agustin, G.R. No. 144499: Cited for the principle that the objective of preliminary injunction is to preserve status quo.
• 4. Los Baños Rural Bank, Inc. v. Africa, G.R. No. 143994: Cited for the definition and purpose of status quo in preliminary injunction.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Article 428, New Civil Code: Defines ownership rights, including the right to enjoy and dispose of property.
• 2. Article 649, New Civil Code: Defines legal easement of right of way for enclosed immovables.
• 3. Article 656, New Civil Code: Provides for temporary easement for construction, repair, or improvement of buildings, after payment of indemnity.