Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 31 views

    Arguments (Ibale Case)

    Uploaded by

    Judiel Pareja

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Arguments (Ibale Case)

    Uploaded by

    Judiel Pareja
    31 views2 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    31 views2 pages

    Arguments (Ibale Case)

    Uploaded by

    Judiel Pareja

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    With due respect your Honor, as per the pleadings filed with

    this Honorable Court, this case ought to be dismissed outright on


    the following grounds:

    1. The elements for the issuance of TRO and/or Writ of


    Preliminary Injunction are glaringly absent in this case:

    Jurisprudence has likewise established that the following


    requisites must be proven first before a writ of preliminary
    injunction, whether mandatory or prohibitory, may be issued:
    (1) The applicant must have a clear and unmistakable right
    to be protected, that is a right in esse;
    (2) There is a material and substantial invasion of such
    right;
    (3) There is an urgent need for the writ to prevent
    irreparable injury to the applicant; and
    (4) No other ordinary, speedy, and adequate remedy exists
    to prevent the infliction of irreparable injury.

    In the case at hand, Petitioner’s claimed right of way is not


    sufficiently established. There is no invasion of such right as
    Petitioner continue to access the said path. Petitioner’s has
    miserably failed to prove irreparable damage on the part of
    applicant. Lastly, there are other available remedies like filing
    a Complaint for Easement of Right of Way.

    2. To reiterate, Petitioner continues to access the lot, which


    is the subject of this case. This is proven by the attached picture/s
    and Paragraph 8 of the Petition. In fact, I am proposing that the
    other party stipulates that Petitioner and its employees are still
    using the subject lot.

    3. Lot No. 1524-D-8 is registered in the name of


    Respondents. Respondents are, therefore, entitled by law to the
    rights of the owner of a real property.
    4. Injunction is not a substitute to a Complaint for
    Easement of Right of Way. As such, this case should not be heard
    by this Honorable Court.

    5. The claim that the “only access from Petitioner’s Lots to


    a public road is through Lot No. 1524-D-8” is blatantly false.
    Respondents are in possession of videos and pictures to disprove
    this assertion. This Court may also conduct ocular inspection to
    check the veracity of this statement.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy