TO BE ENTITLED TO THE INJUNCTIVE WRIT, THE APPLICANT MUST SHOW THAT THERE EXISTS A RIGHT TO BE PROTECTED WHICH IS DIRECTLY THREATENED BY AN ACT SOUGHT TO BE ENJOINED:

      Furthermore, there must be a showing that the invasion of the right is material and substantial and that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. The applicant’s right must be clear and unmistakable. In the absence of a clear legal right, the issuance of the writ constitutes grave abuse of discretion. Where the applicant’s right or title is doubtful or disputed, injunction is not proper. The possibility of irreparable damage without proof of an actual existing right is not a ground for injunction. A clear and positive right especially calling for judicial protection must be shown. Injunction is not a remedy to protect or enforce contingent, abstract, or future rights; it will not issue to protect a right not in esse and which may never arise, or to restrain an act which does not give rise to a cause of action. There must exist an actual right. There must be a patent showing by the applicant that there exists a right to be protected and that the acts against which the writ is to be directed are violative of said right. (Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Fernando Pampanga vs. Eduardo Soriano Jr., et al. ,G.R. No. 153829, August 17, 2011, VILLARAMA, JR., J.).