IDOLOR V. CA (REMEDIAL)

Issue: Whether or not respondent Court erred in finding that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in enjoining the private and public respondents from causing the issuance of a final deed of sale and consolidation of ownership of the subject parcel of land in favor of private respondents.

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; and
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. Failure to establish wither the existence of a clear and positive right which should be judicially protected through the writ of injunction or that the defendant has committed or has attempted to commit any act which has endangered or tends to endanger the existence of said right, is a sufficient ground for denying the injunction.

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 irremedial injury to some of the parties before their claims can be thoroughly investigated and advisedly adjudicated. It is to be resorted to only when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences which cannot be remedied under any standard of compensation.

In the instant case, we agree with the respondent Court that petitioner has not more proprietary right to speak of over the foreclosed property to entitle her to the issuance of a writ of injunction.

When 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 25 June 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 13 June 1998, i.e., two 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.

The existence of a right vilated is a prerequisite to the granting of an injunction. Injunction is not designed to protect contingent or future rights.