04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly first time on appeal.[48] Besides, it is clear that DO No. 05 was not issued pursuant to Section 455 (b) 3 (vi) of the Local Government Code, but pursuant to “Section 3 par. 2.5(a) of the implementing rules and regulations governing summary eviction jointly issued by the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) and the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council x x x,”[49] implementing Section 28, Article VII of RA 7279, the application of which, however, has been herein debunked. In fine, DO No. 05, which ordered the summary demolition of petitioners’ structures, has no legal moorings and perforce was invalidly issued. Accordingly, an injunctive writ to enjoin its implementation is in order. It is well-settled that for an injunction to issue, two requisites must concur: first, there must be a right to be protected; and second, the acts against which the injunction is to be directed are violative of said right.[50] Here, the two (2) requisites are present: there is a right to be protected – that is, petitioners’ right over their structures which should be preserved unless their removal is warranted by law; and the act, i.e., the summary demolition of the structures under DO No. 05, against which the injunction is directed, would violate said right.[51] As a final note, the Court exhorts that absent compliance with the laws allowing for summary eviction, respondents cannot resort to the procedural shortcut of ousting petitioners by the simple expedient of a summary demolition order from the Office of the City Mayor. They have to undergo the appropriate proceeding as set out in the NBCP and its IRR or avail of the proper judicial process to recover the subject property from petitioners. In pursuing said recourse, it would also not be amiss for the parties to await the final resolution of any pending case involving the subject property between petitioners and Ernesto, before the appropriate government agencies, in order to avoid any further complication on the matter. That being said, it is then unnecessary to delve into the other ancillary issues raised in these proceedings. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated June 29, 2012 and the Resolution dated March 5, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 87439 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The implementation of Demolition Order No. 05, series of 2005 is ENJOINED. SO ORDERED. Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, and Perez, JJ., concur. [1] Rollo, pp. 38-116. [2] Id. at 117-132. Penned by Associate Justice Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente with Associate Justices Antonio L. Villamor and Ramon A. Cruz concurring. [3] Id. at 133-135. Penned by Associate Justice Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente with Associate Justices Manuel M. Barrios and Ramon A. Cruz concurring. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60932 9/13