Idolor vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 141853. February 7, 2001.


On March 21, 1994, Idolor secured a loan of 520,000 and executed a Real Estate Mortgage with the right of extrajudicial foreclosure in favor of De Guzman. Due to Idolor’s failure to settle the account, De Guzman filed a complaint which resulted in “Kasunduang Pagaayos. Despite the extension provided, Idolor failed to comply with the undertaking. De Guzman filed an extra-judicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage pursuant to the parties’ agreement. On May 23, 1997, the mortgaged property was sold in a public auction to respondent De Guzman, as the highest bidder. the Sheriffs Certificate of Sale was registered with the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City on June 23, 1997.

On June 25, 1998, petitioner filed a complaint for annulment of Sheriffs Certificate of Sale with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a writ of preliminary injunction against private respondents. She alleged irregularity and lack of notice in the extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings subject of the real estate mortgage.

The trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction.
Spouses de Guzman filed with the respondent Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari seeking annulment of the trial court’s order. The CA granted the petition and annulled the assailed writ of preliminary injunction.


Whether the petitioner has no more proprietary right to the issuance of the writ of injunction. YES


YES. The petitioner has no more proprietary right to speak of over the foreclosed property to entitle her to the issuance of a writ of injunction.  Petitioner had one year from the registration of the sheriff’s sale to redeem the property but she failed to exercise her right on or before June 23, 1998, thus spouses de Guzman are now entitled to a conveyance and possession of the foreclosed property. When the petitioner filed her complaint for annulment of sheriff’s sale against private respondents with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction on June 25, 1998, she failed to show sufficient interest or title in the property sought to be protected as her right of redemption had already expired on June 23, 1998, i.e. two (2) days before the filing of the complaint. 

It is always a ground for denying injunction that the party seeking it has insufficient title or interest to sustain it, and no claim to the ultimate relief sought—in other words, that she shows no equity. The possibility of irreparable damage without proof of actual existing right is not a ground for an injunction.


Injunction is a preservative remedy aimed at protecting substantive rights and interests. Before an injunction can be issued, it is essential that the following requisites be present: 1) there must be a right in esse or the existence of a right to be protected; 2) the act against which the injunction is to be directed is a violation of such right. Hence the existence of a right violated, is a prerequisite to the granting of an injunction. Injunction is not designed to protect contingent or future rights. The controlling reason for the existence of the judicial power to issue the writ is that the court may thereby prevent a threatened or continuous irremediable injury to some of the parties before their claims can be thoroughly investigated and advisedly adjudicated.