Government Infrastructure Projects and Injunction Bans: What Landowners Should Know

The Supreme Court recently clarified an important point for landowners affected by government infrastructure projects: while lower courts are generally barred from issuing temporary restraining orders (TROs) and preliminary injunctions against national projects, they retain jurisdiction over principal actions for permanent injunction. This distinction matters for property owners seeking to protect their rights when government construction affects their land.

The Case: Soller v. Singson

Spouses Prudente and Preciosa Soller, along with Raffy Telosa and Gavino Manibo Jr., owned parcels of land near the Strong Republic Nautical Highway in Bansud, Oriental Mindoro. The Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) commenced an elevation project on the national highway near the Bansud River Bridge. The petitioners claimed the project raised the highway by about one meter, blocking and retaining floodwaters from the Bansud River and mountain farmlands. This allegedly submerged their houses and properties on the left side of the road.

The landowners filed a complaint for permanent injunction and damages with a prayer for TRO and preliminary injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro.

The Government's Motion to Dismiss

Instead of filing an answer, the DPWH Secretary and District Engineer moved to dismiss the case. They argued that Presidential Decree No. 1818 prohibits courts from issuing injunctive writs in cases involving government infrastructure projects. They also invoked the doctrine of State immunity from suit.

The RTC granted the motion, ruling it lacked jurisdiction under Republic Act No. 8975, which prohibits lower courts from issuing TROs, preliminary injunctions, or preliminary mandatory injunctions against government projects.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court reversed the RTC's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court made several key points.

First, the Court noted that the petitioners availed of the wrong remedy. A motion to dismiss granted on lack of jurisdiction operates as a dismissal without prejudice, which is not appealable under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. The proper remedy would have been a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. However, the Court exercised its equity jurisdiction to resolve the case on the merits rather than dismiss it on technicalities.

Second, the Court clarified the scope of RA 8975. Section 3 of RA 8975 prohibits all courts except the Supreme Court from issuing TROs, preliminary injunctions, or preliminary mandatory injunctions against the government to restrain, prohibit, or compel acts related to national government projects. These include the acquisition and development of right-of-way, bidding or awarding of contracts, and the commencement, prosecution, execution, or implementation of such projects.

However, citing the earlier case of Bases Conversion and Development Authority v. Uy, the Court emphasized that this prohibition covers only temporary or preliminary restraining orders and writs—not decisions on the merits granting permanent injunctions.

Principal Action vs. Ancillary Remedy

The Court distinguished between a principal action for injunction and the provisional remedy of preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction cannot exist except as part of an independent action or proceeding. In this case, the landowners' complaint was for permanent injunction—a principal action—with a prayer for TRO and preliminary injunction as ancillary relief.

Under Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, the RTC has jurisdiction over all civil cases where the subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation. A complaint for injunction falls under this category. The Court reiterated that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought.

Practical Takeaways

• Landowners affected by government infrastructure projects may file principal actions for permanent injunction before the RTC, even when RA 8975 applies.
• Lower courts cannot issue TROs or preliminary injunctions against national government projects—only the Supreme Court can.
• A complaint for injunction with a prayer for TRO or preliminary injunction remains within RTC jurisdiction because the principal action controls.
• A dismissal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction is not appealable; the proper remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
• Property owners should be aware that procedural technicalities may be relaxed when substantial justice requires it, but the correct remedy should still be pursued.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.