CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY LANDLESS RESIDENTS ASSOC. V. CA

FACTS:

Land in question is a public land. Bureau of Lands granted authority to COCLAI to survey the land for purposes of subdivision into residential lots. NHA, on the other hand, filed an expropriation proceeding to acquire the same lot. The President of the Philippines issued a proclamation granting NHA to develop, administer and dispose said land. So, NHA demolished the structures built by COCLAI. MTCC granted forcible entry decision against NHA & RTC affirmed. While case was pending, the President of the Philippines issued a Special Patent covering the land in question, thereby granting title to NHA. COCLAI moved for the execution of forcible entry while NHA wants to quiet the title and an application for a writ of preliminary injunction.

ISSUE:

Who has the better right?

HELD:

NHA has a better right.
An injunction may only be restored by a litigant for the preservation or protection of his rights. CA was justified in ruling that NHA was entitled to writ of injunction since it has a title on the lot and the proclamation granted the authority to dispose the land. On the other hand, petitioner’s only basis is lawful entry and possession. Petitioners became squatters with no legal right over the land they are occupying.