PROPERTY
ART.429
CASE TITLE FACTS
Buayan Cattle v  Buayan Cattle Co. is the holder of Pasture Lease
Quintillan Agreement No.8 (PLA8)(1952). It covers 1,000
(Adan: binakuran hectares of fenced pasture land in South Cotabato
ang hindi kanya)  PLA2510 (1964) was allegedly issued to private
respondent, Adan de Las Marias. It covered 930
hectares of land adjacent to that of Buayan.
 Adan caused a survey by a forest guard to determine
the extent of his land and fence it.
 The survey showed that the boundaries of his land
extended 580 hectares into the pasture land of the
Buayan.
 Adan removed Buayan’s fence and set up his own
boundary fence 580 hectares into Buayan’s area.
Buayan reported this to the District Forester at General
Santos, Cotabato.
 Buayan filed a letter-complaint w/ Dir. of Forestry
against Adan, alleging the non-existence of the area
leased under the Adan’s PLA2510 and suggesting
remedial measures to protect Buayan’s interests.
 District Forester ordered Adan to stop putting fences
until relocation of correct boundary by the Forester
 Buayan complained to Dir. Of Forestry of Adan’s
defiance. Assistance was sought to stop Adan while
conflict is pending resolution by Dir. Of Forestry. (2
times, 2nd time was warned that SPLA will get cancelled
if Adan doesn’t stop driving away Buayan’s horses and
cows out of the area under conflict)
 Adan filed a complaint for injunction with preliminary
w/ CFI seeking to enjoin Buayan, District Forester of
Southern Cotabato, the Director of Forestry, et.al. from
restricting him in the exercise of his lease rights.
GRANTED. WRIT ISSUED.
 Buayan filed a motion to dissolve said writ.
 PLA2510 was suspended by Sec of Agriculture and
Natural Resources due to prima facie showing forgery
Arquillo
RULING/DOCTRINE
1. The petitioner’s act of repelling the private respondent’s entry
into the former’s land is sanctioned by law.
Article 429. The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to
exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this
purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or
prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of
his property.
Article 539. Every possessor has a right to be respected in his possession;
and should he be disturbed therein he shall be protected in or restored to
said possession by the means established by the laws and the Rules of Court
(Civil Code of the Philippines).
The letter-complaint filed by Bauyan is consonant with the procedure
sanctioned by the Revised Administrative Code and Forestry
Administrative Order No. 6-2. The orders issued by the Director of
Forestry, including those dated September 7 and 17, 1965 are well within
the powers of said office.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2. There is a perversion of a writ of preliminary injunction
effectively restraining, not the wrongdoer (Adan), but the person
who is in the vigilant protection of his rights. (Buayan)
Two requisites for an injunction to issue:
1. the existence of the right to be protected
2. the facts against which injunction is to be directed are violative of
said right (both must appear in allegation of complaint)
The first possessor of the disputed area is Buayan, by virtue of an
undisputedly valid lease agreement with the government.This affords
Buayan preference against any other claim of right. Adan can raise no
more than a doubtful claim over the property, which militates against the
issuance in Adan’s favor of a writ of preliminary injunction. Adan was the
usurper. Adan removed Buayan’s fence and set his own fence, violating
Buayan’s superior right. The office of the writ of injunction is to restrain
the wrongdoer, not to protect him.
 of Dist. Forester’s signature was committed in the
survey inspection report
Buayan, Dist. Forester, Dir. Of Forestry, and Sec of Agr.
Filed their answers to Adan’s complaint:
 Buayan questioned the validity of survey by forest
guard as conducted by one not competent to do so
 Buayan filed a counter-claim against Adan (bad faith)
 CFI: denied motion to dissolve writ of prelim. inj.
 Buayan filed a petition for prohibition, certiori, &
mandamus
ISSUES:
1. (More impt. Issue) W/N BAUYAN’S ACT OF
REPELLING ADAN’S ENTRY INTO BAUYAN’S LAND IS
SANCTIONED BY LAW: YES
2. W/N INJUNCTION COMPLAINT FILED BY ADAN W/
CFI AND ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT OF PRELIM
INJUNCTION BY CFI WERE PROPER: NO
Arquillo
EVIDENCE OF BUAYAN’S BETTER RIGHT:
1. Buayan a prior lessee (since 1952); Adan’s PLA granted in 1964
2. Forgery of District Forester’s signature in survey report
3. Survey irregular bec conducted by a forest guard (not
competent) & not in accordance w/ Bureau of Forestry rules
 Even assuming, arguendo, PLA2510 is valid, complaint for and writ of
preliminary injunction issued are, at least, premature.
 Assuming Adan’s lease right is equally valid as that of Buayan, Adan’s
course of action should’ve been to seek aid of a competent court and
not take the law into his own hands by destroying Buayan’s fences.
Failure of Adan to exhaust administrative remedies results in
ABSENCE OF CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INJUNCTION
 Revised Administrative Code (Department Head may repeal
decision of the chief of bureaus, like Bureau Of Forestry)
 Forestry Administrative Order No. 6-2 (A forest land
permittee who believes that another peson is encroaching
upon his land shall report to the Director of Forestry)
Petition Granted. Order for issuance of writ of injunction set aside as
null and void.