Yaptinchay v. Torres, 28 SCRA 489

FACTS: Teresita C. Yaptinchay alleged that the deceased Isidro Yaptinchay had lived with her continuously, openly and publicly as husband and wife for 19 year. The deceased died without a will left an estate consisting of personal and real properties situated in the Philippines, Hongkong and other places with an estimated value of about P500,000. The deceased left three daughters, Virginia Yaptinchay, Mary Yaptinchay Eligir and Asuncion Yaptinchay, who carted away from the residences aforesaid personal properties belonging to the deceased together with others exclusively owned by petitioner. It was averred that in these circumstances the appointment of a special administrator to take custody and care of the interests of the deceased pending appointment of a regular administrator became an urgent necessity.

ISSUE: Can petitioner claim ownership.

HELD: Until such right to co-ownership is duly established, petitioner's interests in the property in controversy cannot be considered the "present right" or title that would make available the protection or aid afforded by a writ of injunction. For, the existence of a clear positive right especially calling for judicial protection is wanting. Injunction indeed, is not to protect contingent or future rights; nor is it a remedy to enforce an abstract right. Common-law wife was not able to prove that they jointly bought the property in Forbes Park so it belonged to the legal marriage.