FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 169694, December 09, 2015

MEGAWORLD PROPERTIES AND HOLDINGS, INC., EMPIRE EAST LAND

HOLDINGS, INC., AND ANDREW L. TAN, Petitioners, v. MAJESTIC FINANCE AND
INVESTMENT CO., INC., RHODORA LOPEZ-LIM, AND PAULINA
CRUZ, Respondents.

DECISION

BERSAMIN, J.:

This case arises from a dispute on whether either party of a joint venture agreement to
develop property into a residential subdivision has already performed its obligation as to
entitle it to demand the performance of the other's reciprocal
obligation.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

The Case

Under review is the decision promulgated on April 27, 2005,1 whereby the Court of
Appeals (CA) upheld the order issued on November 5, 2002 by the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 67, in Pasig City (RTC) in Civil Case No. 67813 directing the defendants
(petitioners herein) to perform their obligation to provide round-the-clock security for the
property under development.2 Also appealed is the resolution promulgated on
September 12, 2005 denying the petitioners' motion for
reconsideration.3chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Antecedents

On September 23, 1994, Megaworld Properties and Holdings, Inc. (developer) entered
into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA)4 with Majestic Finance and Investment Co., Inc.
(owner) for the development of the residential subdivision located in Brgy. Alingaro,
General Trias, Cavite. According to the JVA, the development of the 215 hectares of
land belonging to the owner (joint venture property) would be for the sole account of the
developer;5 and that upon completion of the development of the subdivision, the owner
would compensate the developer in the form of saleable residential subdivision
lots.6 The JVA further provided that the developer would advance all the costs for the
relocation and resettlement of the occupants of the joint venture property, subject to
reimbursement by the owner;7 and that the developer would deposit the initial amount of
P10,000,000.00 to defray the expenses for the relocation and settlement, and the costs
for obtaining from the Government the exemptions and conversion permits, and the
required clearances.8chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

On September 24, 1994, the developer and owner agreed, through the addendum to
the JVA,9 to increase the initial deposit for the settlement of claims and the relocation of
the tenants from P10,000,000.00 to P60,000,000.00.

On October 27, 1994, the developer, by deed of assignment,10 transferred, conveyed

and assigned to Empire East Land Holdings, Inc. (developer/assignee) all its rights and
obligations under the JVA including the addendum.

On February 29, 2000, the owner filed in the RTC a complaint for specific performance
with damages against the developer, the developer/assignee, and respondent Andrew
Tan, who are now the petitioners herein. The complaint, docketed as Civil Case No.
67813, was mainly based on the failure of the petitioners to comply with their obligations
under the JVA,11 including the obligation to maintain a strong security force to safeguard
the entire joint venture property of 215 hectares from illegal entrants and occupants.

Following the joinder of issues by the petitioners' answer with counterclaim, and by the
respondents' reply with answer to the counterclaim, the RTC set the pre-trial of the
case. At the conclusion of the pre-trial conference, the presentation of the owner's
evidence was suspended because of the parties' manifestation that they would settle
the case amicably. It appears that the parties negotiated with each other on how to
implement the JVA and the addendum.

On September 16, 2002, the owner filed in the RTC a manifestation and
motion,12 praying therein that the petitioners be directed to provide round-the-clock
security for the joint venture property in order to defend and protect it from the invasion
of unauthorized persons. The petitioners opposed the manifestation and
motion,13 pointing out that: (1) the move to have them provide security in the properties
was premature; and (2) under the principle of reciprocal obligations, the owner could not
compel them to perform their obligations under the JVA if the owner itself refused to
honor its obligations under the JVA and the addendum.

On November 5, 2002, the RTC issued its first assailed order,14 directing the developer
to provide sufficient round-the-clock security for the protection of the joint venture
property, as follows:

For consideration is a "Manifestation and Motion" filed by plaintiff, through counsel,

defendants having filed their Opposition thereto, the incident is now ripe for resolution.

After a careful examination of the records of this case, the Court believes that the
defendants should provide security for the 215 hectares land subject of the joint venture
agreement to protect it from unlawful elements as well as to avoid undue damage which
may be caused by the settling of squatters. As specified in Article III par. (j) of the joint
venture agreement which was entered into by plaintiffs and defendants, the latter shall
at its exclusive account and sole expense secure the land in question from the influx of
squatters and/or unauthorized settlers, occupants, tillers, cultivators and the likes from
date of execution of this agreement.

WHEREFORE, and as prayed for, the Court hereby directs the defendants to provide
sufficient round the clock security for the protection of the 215 hectares land subject of
the joint venture agreement during the pendency of this case.

SO ORDERED.

The petitioners sought the reconsideration of the November 5, 2002 order,15 but the
RTC denied the motion on May 19, 2003,16 observing that there was no reason to
reverse the order in question considering that the allegations in the motion for
reconsideration, being a mere rehash of those made earlier, had already been passed
upon.

On August 4, 2003, the petitioners instituted a special civil action for certiorari in the
CA,17 claiming therein that the RTC thereby gravely abused its discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the order of November 5, 2002, specifying the
following grounds, namely:

THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT GRAVELY ABUSED HIS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO

LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN DIRECTING PETITIONERS TO PROVIDE
ROUND THE CLOCK SECURITY GUARDS ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES.

I. THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT ARBITRARILY AND PREMATURELY DISPOSED OF

ONE OF THE RELIEF[S] PRAYED FOR BY PRIVATE RESPONDENTS IN THEIR
COMPLAINT WHEN TRIAL HAS NOT EVEN STARTED.

II. PUBLIC RESPONDENT ARBITRARILY DISREGARDED THE FACT THAT THE

PARTIES ARE DISCUSSING HOW TO PURSUE THE JVA.

III. PUBLIC RESPONDENT ARBITRARILY DISREGARDED THE PRINCIPLE OF

"RECIPROCAL OBLIGATIONS" UNDER THE CIVIL CODE.

On April 27, 2005, the CA promulgated its assailed decision dismissing the petitioner's
petition for certiorari,18 ruling thusly:

On the merits of the petition, our examination of the records shows nothing whimsical or
arbitrary in the respondent judge's order directing the petitioners to provide security over
the joint venture property. Like the respondent judge, we believe that the obligation of
the petitioners under the JVA to provide security in the area, as spelled out under Article
II, par. (c) and Article III, paragraphs (h) and (j), is well established, thus:

xxxx

These clear and categorical provisions in the JVA -which petitioners themselves do not
question -obviously belie their contention that the respondent judge's order to provide
security for the property is premature at this stage. The petitioner's obligation to secure
the property under the JVA arose upon the execution of the Agreement, or as soon as
the petitioners acquired possession of the joint venture property in 1994, and is
therefore already demandable. The settled rule is that "contracts are the laws between
the contracting parties, and if their terms are clear and leave no room for doubt as to
their intentions, the contracts are obligatory no matter what their forms may be,
whenever the essential requisites for their validity are present." Thus, unless the
existence of this particular obligation - i.e., to secure the joint venture property - is
challenged, petitioners are bound to respect the terms of the Agreement and of his
obligation as the law between them and MAJESTIC.

We stress along this line that the complaint MAJESTIC filed below is for specific
performance and is not for rescission of contract. The complaint presupposes existing
obligations on the part of the petitioners that MAJESTIC seeks to be carried out in
accordance with the terms of the Agreement. Significantly, MAJESTIC did not pray in
the complaint that petitioners be ordered to secure the area from the influx of illegal
settlers and squatters because petitioner's obligation in this regard commenced upon
the execution of the JVA and hence, is already an existing obligation. What it did ask is
for the petitioners to maintain a strong security force at all times over the area, in
keeping with their commitment to secure the area from the influx of illegal settlers and
occupant. To be sure, to "maintain" means "to continue", "to carry on", to "hold or keep
in any particular state or condition" and presupposes an obligation that already began.
Thus, contrary to petitioner's submissions, the question of whether or not they have the
obligation to provide security in the area is not at all an issue in the case below. The
issue MAJESTIC presented below is whether or not petitioner should be ordered to
maintain a strong security force within the joint venture property. Hence, in issuing the
assailed orders, the public respondent prejudged no issue that is yet to be resolved
after the parties shall have presented their evidence.

Our conclusion (that the petitioner's obligation to secure and protect the joint venture
property is a non-issue in the case below) necessarily explains why the first assailed
order -although not in the form of a preliminary mandatory injunction -is nonetheless
legally justified. As an established and undisputed interim measure pending the
resolution of the case on the merits, we do not see its enforcement as hindrance to
whatever negotiations the parties may undertake to settle their dispute.

Nor do we find the principle of reciprocal obligations a justification for petitioner's refusal
to perform their commitment of safeguarding the joint venture property. For, while it is
true that the JVA gives rise to reciprocal obligations from both parties, these obligations
are not necessarily demandable at the same time. MAJESTIC's initial obligation under
the JVA is to deliver or surrender to the petitioners the possession of the joint venture
property -an obligation it fulfilled upon the execution of the Agreement. MAJESTIC's
obligation under the JVA to deliver to the petitioners the titles to the joint venture
property and to reimburse them for tenant-related expenses are demandable at later
stages of the contract or upon completion of the development, and therefore may not be
used by the petitioners as an excuse for not complying with their own currently
demandable obligation.

All told, we believe that securing and protecting the area from unlawful elements
benefits both the developer and the landowner who are equally keen in safeguarding
their interests in the project. Otherwise stated, incursion by unlawful settlers into an
unsecured and unprotected joint venture property can only cause great loss and
damage to both parties. Reasons of practicality within legal parameters, rather than
grave abuse of discretion, therefore underlie the respondent judge's challenged orders.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DISMISS the petition for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.19 (Emphasis omitted)

On May 26, 2005, the petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration,20 but the CA denied
the motion on September 12, 2005.21chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Hence, this appeal by petition for review on certiorari.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Issues

The petitioner submits the following issues:

a. Whether or not the petitioners are obligated to perform their obligations under the
JVA, including that of providing round-the-clock security for the subject
properties, despite respondents' failure or refusal to acknowledge, or perform
their reciprocal obligations there;

b. Whether or not the RTC gravely abused its discretion in directing the petitioners
to perform their obligations under the JVA, including that of providing round-the-
clock security for the subject properties, although the JVA had been suspended
due to the parties' disagreement as to how to implement the same;

c. Whether or not the RTC gravely abused its discretion in issuing the first and
second assailed orders and prematurely resolving and disposing of one of the
causes of action of the respondents, which was to provide round-the-clock
security for the subject properties, an issue proposed by the respondents, even
before the termination of the pre-trial;

d. Whether or not the RTC gravely abused its discretion in issuing the first and
second assailed orders in clear disregard of the mandatory requirements of Rule
58 of the Rules of Court.22chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Ruling of the Court

The appeal is meritorious. The CA erred in upholding the November 5, 2002 order of
the RTC.

The obligations of the parties under the JVA were unquestionably reciprocal. Reciprocal
obligations are those that arise from the same cause, and in which each party is a
debtor and a creditor of the other at the same time, such that the obligations of one are
dependent upon the obligations of the other. They are to be performed simultaneously,
so that the performance by one is conditioned upon the simultaneous fulfillment by the
other.23 As the Court has expounded in Consolidated Industrial Gases, Inc. v. Alabang
Medical Center:24chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Reciprocal obligations are those which arise from the same cause, and in which each
party is a debtor and a creditor of the other, such that the obligation of one is dependent
upon the obligation of the other. They are to be performed simultaneously, so that the
performance of one is conditioned upon the simultaneous fulfillment of the other. In
reciprocal obligations, neither party incurs in delay if the other does not comply or is not
ready to comply in a proper manner with what is incumbent upon him. From the moment
one of the parties fulfills his obligation, delay by the other begins.

xxxx

In reciprocal obligations, before a party can demand the performance of the obligation
of the other, the former must also perform its own obligation. For its failure to turn over a
complete project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the installation
contracts, CIGI cannot demand for the payment of the contract price balance from AMC,
which, in turn, cannot legally be ordered to pay.25chanrobleslaw

The determination of default on the part of either of the parties depends on the terms of
the JVA that clearly categorized the parties' several obligations into two types.

The first type related to the continuous obligations that would be continuously performed

from the moment of the execution of the JVA until the parties shall have achieved the
purpose of their joint venture. The continuous obligations under the JVA were as
follows: (1) the developer would secure the joint venture property from unauthorized
occupants;26 (2) the owner would allow the developer to take possession of the joint
venture property;27 (3) the owner would deliver any and all documents necessary for the
accomplishment of each activity;28 and (4) both the developer and the owner would pay
the real estate taxes.29chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The second type referred to the activity obligations. The following table shows the
activity obligations of the parties under the JVA, to wit:

SEQUENCE OF ACTIVITIES (Article XIV of the JVA)

ACTIVITY OWNER  DEVELOPER OBLIGATION
OBLIGATION
Signing of JVA. Sign JVA Sign JVA
 Art. II(b) Art. V par. 2
Deliver any and all Pay real estate taxes 
documents required for the Art. IIIa par. 2
successful development of Deposit P10M
the Project
Art. V par. 2
Pay real estate taxes
Art. II(g)
Warrant absolute ownership
DEVELOPER to negotiate Art. II(b) Art. V par. 2
immediately with all tenants, Deliver any and all Pay real estate taxes
settlers, occupants, tillers, documents required for the Art. II(c)
cultivators of the land in successful development of Take possession of the
question. the Project parcels of land
Art. V par. 2 Art. III (j)
Pay real estate taxes Secure property from
Art. II(c) invasion of squatters and
Allow DEVELOPER to take other elements
possession of subject Art. III (c)
property To negotiate with occupants
DEVELOPER to pay and Art. II(b) Art. V par. 2
settle all monetary claims of Deliver any and all Pay real estate taxes
all tenants, settlers, documents required for the Art. II(c)
occupants, tillers, cultivators successful development of Take possession of the
of the land. the Project parcels of land
Art. V par. 2 Art. III (j)
Pay real estate taxes Secure property from
Art. VI invasion of squatters and
Must consent on the other elements
reasonableness of the Art. III(a) par. 1
expenses. Advance expense for
settlement and relocation
Art. III(a) par. 2
Deposit P10M in a joint
account of parties.
DEVELOPER to relocate Art. II(b) Art. V par. 2
and transfer all the tenants, Deliver any and all Pay real estate taxes
settlers, occupants, tillers, documents required for the Art. III(c)
cultivators of the land to successful development of Take possession of the
their relocation site, and the Project parcels of land
shall endeavor to fulfill the Art. V par. 2 Art. III(j)
same and the two Pay real estate taxes Secure property from
immediately preceding Art. II(d) invasion of squatters and
paragraphs (b & c) up to the Agree to allocate and other elements
extent of 75% aggregate a resettlement Art. III(a) par. 1
accomplishment thereof site within the property Advance expense for
within a period of one (1) subject to mutually settlement and relocation
year from date of execution accepted conditions. Art. III(a)par. 2
of this Agreement. The Art. VI Deposit P10M in a joint
remaining 25% of the same Must consent on the account of OWNER and
requirements shall be fully reasonableness of the DEVELOPER
accomplished within another expenses. Art. III(c)
6 months from date of Relocate the occupants
expiration of the original
one-year period.
DEVELOPER to apply for Art. II(b) Art. V par. 2
and secure exemption or Deliver any and all Pay real estate taxes 
conversion permit and such documents required for the Art. II(c)  
other related requirements successful development of Take possession of the
needed for the approval of the Project parcels of land 
exemption or conversion Art. V par. 2 Art. III (j)
application of the land in Pay real estate taxes Secure property from
question within a period of Art. II(f) invasion of squatters and
one and a half (1 1/2) years Assist DEVELOPER secure other elements
from date of execution of exemption from CARL and Art. III(a)
this Agreement subject to a conversion/reclassification Advance expenses for
six (6) month extension. of subject property exemption, conversion, re-
Art. III(b) classification expenses.
Give DEVELOPER Art.III(b) secure exemption
authority to apply for and conversion permit
exemption, conversion and
re-classification.
Art. VI
Must consent on the
reasonableness of the
expenses.
DEVELOPER to lay out a Art.III(i) Art. III(d)
complete Development Plan Give written conformity to Complete comprehensive
the development plan development plan (within 6
months to one year from the
execution of the JVA)
DEVELOPER to apply for Art. II(b) Art. V par. 2
and secure all necessary Deliver any and all Pay real estate taxes
development permit, documents required for the Art. II(c)
performance bonds, successful development of Take possession of the
environmental compliance the Project parcels of land
certificate, license to sell Art. V par. 2 Art. III (j)
and all other related Pay real estate taxes Secure property from
requirement from the invasion of squatters and
pertinent Municipal other elements 
Government, DENR, Art. III(f)
HLURB and other Secure development permit,
governmental agencies ECC, License to Sell, etc.
concerned within a period of
2 years from date of
execution of this Agreement.
DEVELOPER  Art. II(b) Art. V par. 2
construction stage/ground Deliver any and all Pay real estate taxes
breaking to commence after documents required for the Art. II(c)
release of DAR exemption successful development of Take possession of the
permit or conversion the Project parcels of land
clearance and approval of Art. V par. 2 Art. III (j)
other required permits by Pay real estate taxes Secure property from
pertinent agencies of the invasion of squatters and
government. other elements
Art. III(e)
Mobilize development work
and solely pay its expenses
Art. III(f)
Develop the property and
solely pay its expenses on
necessary permits
DEVELOPER to secure Art. II(b) Art. V par. 2
approval of subdivision plan Deliver any and all Pay real estate taxes
and technical description documents required for the Art. II(c)
from the Bureau of Lands successful development of Take possession of the
based on the approved the Project parcels of land
scheme and thereafter to Art. V par. 2 Art. III (j)
petition, follow-up and Pay real estate taxes  Secure property from
secure the release of Art. II(a) invasion of squatters and
individual titles for all lots in Deliver titles to other elements
the project in the respective DEVELOPER  Art. III(k)
names of the parties form Art. II(a) Process titling of lots 
the register of deeds. Execute Deed of
Assignment 
Art. III(a) 
Pay all expenses for
settlement of claims,
relocation, application for
exemption, conversion, re-
classification.
Market and Sell the property Fix selling date Fix selling date
Owner to reimburse and pay
the DEVELOPER

The activities under the JVA fell into seven major categories, specifically: (l)the
relocation of the occupants; (2) the completion of the development plan; (3) the securing
of exemption and conversion permits; (4) the obtention of the development permits from
government agencies; (5) the development of the subject land; (6) the issuance of titles
for the subdivided lots; and (7) the selling of the subdivided lots and the reimbursement
of the advances.

For the first activity (i.e., the relocation of the occupants), the developer was obliged to
negotiate with the occupants, to advance payment for disturbance compensation, and to
relocate the occupants to an area within the subject land, while the owner was obliged
to agree to and to allocate the resettlement site within the property, and to approve the
expenses to be incurred for the process. Should the owner fail to allocate the site for the
resettlement, the obligation of the developer to relocate would not be demandable.
Conversely, should the developer fail to negotiate with the occupants, the owner's
obligation to allocate the resettlement site would not become due.

As to the second activity (i.e., the completion of the development plan), the developer
had the obligation to lay out the plan, but the owner needed to conform to the plan
before the same was finalized. Accordingly, the final development plan would not be
generated should the owner fail to approve the lay-out plan; nor would the owner be
able to approve if no such plan had been initially laid out by the developer.

In each activity, the obligation of each party was dependent upon the obligation of the
other. Although their obligations were to be performed simultaneously, the performance
of an activity obligation was still conditioned upon the fulfillment of the continuous
obligation, and vice versa. Should either party cease to perform a continuous obligation,
the other's subsequent activity obligation would not accrue. Conversely, if an activity
obligation was not performed by either party, the continuous obligation of the other
would cease to take effect. The performance of the continuous obligation was subject to
the resolutory condition that the precedent obligation of the other party, whether
continuous or activity, was fulfilled as it became due. Otherwise, the continuous
obligation would be extinguished.

According to Article 1184 of the Civil Code, the condition that some event happen at a
determinate time shall extinguish the obligation as soon as the time expires, or if it has
become indubitable that the event will not take place. Here, the common cause of the
parties in entering into the joint venture was the development of the joint venture
property into the residential subdivision as to eventually profit therefrom. Consequently,
all of the obligations under the JVA were subject to the happening of the complete
development of the joint venture property, or if it would become indubitable that the
completion would not take place, like when an obligation, whether continuous or activity,
was not performed. Should any of the obligations, whether continuous or activity, be not
performed, all the other remaining obligations would not ripen into demandable
obligations while those already performed would cease to take effect. This is because
every single obligation of each party under the JVA rested on the common cause of
profiting from the developed subdivision.

It appears that upon the execution of the JVA, the parties were performing their
respective obligations until disagreement arose between them that affected the
subsequent performance of their accrued obligations. Being reciprocal in nature, their
respective obligations as the owner and the developer were dependent upon the
performance by the other of its obligations; hence, any claim of delay or non-
performance against the other could prosper only if the complaining party had faithfully
complied with its own correlative obligation.30chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

A respected commentator has cogently observed in this

connection:31chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

§ 135. Same; consequences of simultaneous performance. As a consequence of

the rule of simultaneous performance, if the party who has not performed his obligation
demands performance from the other, the latter may interpose the defense of unfulfilled
contract (exceptio non adimpleli contraclus) by virtue of which he cannot be obliged to
perform while the other's obligation remains unfulfilled. Hence, the Spanish Supreme
Court has ruled that the non-performance of one party is justified if based on the non-
performance of the other; that the party who has failed to perform cannot demand
performance from the other; and that judicial approval is not necessary to release a
party from his obligation, the non-performance of the other being a sufficient defense
against any demand for performance by the guilty party.

Another consequence of simultaneous performance is the rule of compensatio

morae, that is to say that neither party incurs in delay if the other does not or is not
ready to comply in a proper manner with what is incumbent upon him. From the moment
one of the parties fulfills his obligations, delay by the other begins.

Yet, the record is bereft of the proof to support the lower courts' unanimous conclusion
that the owner had already performed its correlative obligation under the JVA as to
place itself in the position to demand that the developer should already perform its
obligation of providing the round-the-clock security on the property. In issuing its order
of November 5, 2002, therefore, the RTC acted whimsically because it did not first
ascertain whether or not the precedent reciprocal obligation of the owner upon which
the demanded obligation of the developer was dependent had already been performed.
Without such showing that the developer had ceased to perform a continuous obligation
to provide security over the joint venture property despite complete fulfillment by the
owner of all its accrued obligations, the owner had no right to demand from the
developer the round-the-clock security over the 215 hectares of land.

The CA further gravely erred in characterizing the order for the petitioners to implement
the round-the-clock security provision of the JVA and the addendum as an established
and undisputed interim measure that could be issued pending the resolution of the case
on the merits.

Apart from the provisional remedies expressly recognized and made available under
Rule 56 to Rule 61 of the Rules of Court, the Court has sanctioned only the issuance of
the status quo ante order but only to maintain the last, actual, peaceable and
uncontested state of things that preceded the controversy.32 The eminent Justice
Florenz D. Regalado,33 an authority on remedial law, has delineated the nature of
the status quo ante order, and distinguished it from the provisional remedy of temporary
restraining order, as follows:

There have been instances when the Supreme Court has issued a status quo order
which, as the very term connotes, is merely intended to maintain the last, actual,
peaceable and uncontested state of things which preceded the controversy. This was
resorted to when the projected proceedings in the case made the conservation of
the status quo desirable or essential, but the affected party neither sought such relief or
the allegations in his pleading did not sufficiently make out a case for a temporary
restraining order. The status quo order was thus issued motu proprio on equitable
considerations. Also, unlike a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction,
a status quo order is more in the nature of a cease and desist order, since it neither
directs the doing or undoing of acts as in the case of prohibitory or mandatory injunctive
relief. The further distinction is provided by the present amendment in the sense that,
unlike the amended rule on restraining orders, astatus quo order does not require the
posting of a bond.

The order of November 5, 2002, by directing the developer to provide sufficient round-
the-clock security for the protection of the joint venture property during the pendency of
the case, was not of the nature of the status quo ante order because the developer, as
averred in the complaint, had not yet provided a single security watchman to secure the
entire 215 hectares of land for several years.34 Also, the owner stated in the comment to
the petition that the developer had dismissed all the security guards posted in the
property since 1997.35 At the time of the filing of the complaint for specific performance
on February 29, 2000, therefore, the last actual, peaceable and uncontested state of
things preceding the controversy was the absence of such security, not the installation
of the security personnel/measures. In fact, the failure of the developer to provide the
round-the-clock security itself became the controversy that impelled the owner to bring
the action against the petitioners.

By preliminarily directing the developer to provide sufficient round-the-clock security for

the protection of the joint venture property during the pendency of the case, the
November 5, 2002 order of the RTC did not come under the category of the status quo
ante order that would issue upon equitable consideration, or even of an injunctive relief
that would issue under Rule 58 of the Rules of Court. Hence, the issuance of the order
constituted a blatant jurisdictional error that needed to be excised. Verily, a jurisdictional
error is one by which the act complained of was issued by the court without or in excess
of jurisdiction.36Without jurisdiction means that the court acted with absolute want of
jurisdiction. Excess of jurisdiction means that the court has jurisdiction but has
transcended the same or acted without any statutory
authority.37chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Although the RTC undoubtedly had jurisdiction to hear and decide the principal action
for specific performance as well as to act on the motions submitted to it in the course of
the proceedings, the distinction between jurisdiction over the case and jurisdiction to
issue an interlocutory order as an ancillary remedy incident to the principal action
should be discerned. We have frequently declared that a court may have jurisdiction
over the principal action but may nevertheless act irregularly or in excess of its
jurisdiction in the course of its proceedings by the granting of an auxiliary
remedy.38 In Leung Ben v. O'Brien,39 for instance, this Court has thus clarified:

It may be observed in this connection that the word "jurisdiction" as used in attachment
cases, has reference not only to the authority of the court to entertain the principal
action but also to its authority to issue the attachment, as dependent upon the existence
of the statutory ground. (6 C. J., 89.) This distinction between jurisdiction to issue the
attachment as an ancillary remedy incident to the principal litigation is of importance; as
a court's jurisdiction over the main action may be complete, and yet it may lack authority
to grant an attachment as ancillary to such action. This distinction between jurisdiction
over the ancillary has been recognized by this court in connection with actions involving
the appointment of a receiver. Thus in Rocha & Co. vs. Crossfield and Figueras (6 Phil.
Rep., 355), a receiver had been appointed without legal justification. It was held that the
order making the appointment was beyond the jurisdiction of the court; and though the
court admittedly had jurisdiction of the main cause, the order was vacated by this court
upon application a writ of certiorari. (See Blanco vs. Ambler, 3 Phil. Rep., 358, Blanco
vs. Ambler and McMicking 3 Phil. Rep., 735, Yangco vs. Rohde, 1 Phil. Rep., 404.)

By parity of reasoning it must follow that when a court issues a writ of attachment for
which there is no statutory authority, it is acting irregularly and in excess of its
jurisdiction, in the sense necessary to justify the Supreme Court in granting relief by the
writ of certiorari.

WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition for review

on certiorari; REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision promulgated on April 27, 2005
and the resolution promulgated on September 12, 2005; NULLIFIES the orders issued
on November 5, 2002 and May 19, 2003 in Civil Case No. 67813 by the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 67, in Pasig City; DIRECTS the Regional Trial Court, Branch 67, in Pasig
City to resume the proceedings in Civil Case No. 67813 with dispatch;
and ORDERS the respondents to pay the costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.cralawlawlibrary

Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-De Castro, Perez, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.