G.R. No. L-28380 - Defante vs. Rodriguez

On October 20, 1964, Enrique A. Defante was sued by the Municipality of Las Piñas for alleged forcible entry into a lot owned by the municipal government (Civil Case No. 226).
Municipal Judge Antonio E. Rodriguez issued a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction enjoining Defante from further occupying the eastern portion of the lot.

Acting on Judge Rodriguez’s order dated December 20, 1966, the writ was enforced on December 21, 1966.
The enforcement was carried out by Atty. Rodolfo E. Mateo, Francisco Tejones, Loreto Torres, and Wilfredo Montes, resulting in Defante’s ejection from the lot and the alleged demolition of his improvements.

On January 21, 1967, Defante filed an action for damages before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasay City Branch VII (Civil Case No. 847-R) against Judge Rodriguez and the aforementioned persons involved in the enforcement.
The cause of action was predicated on the claim that the ejection and demolition of improvements were wrongful actions violating his rights.

Defendants Mateo, Tejones, Torres, and Montes moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing a lack of cause of action and lack of jurisdiction.
Municipal Judge Rodriguez initially adopted the motion to dismiss, and later Judge Francisco de la Rosa confirmed the dismissal in an order dated March 2, 1967.
The dismissal was based on the finding that the damages claim was intimately connected with the pending ejectment suit in the municipal court of Las Piñas.

Defante appealed the order of dismissal on the ground that it was contrary to law.
Both parties submitted their respective briefs; the appeal was set for decision on September 27, 1968.
Developments occurred after the submission:

On February 16, 1976, Defante’s counsel informed the Court that Defante had died and that due to complications in a related registration case concerning the lot, Defante’s heirs “are no longer interested” in prosecuting the appeal.
The defendants-appellees similarly indicated that the appeal had become moot in light of Defante’s concurrent appeal in the ejectment suit and his subsequent death.

Whether the damages action presented by Defante was proper and distinct from the ejectment suit, or if it was so intimately connected that it warranted dismissal due to lack of an independent cause of action or jurisdiction.
Whether the lower court’s dismissal was proper on the ground that the remedy sought was inherently tied to the pending ejectment case.

Whether the appeal should proceed given the developments in the underlying cases, specifically Defante’s death and the corresponding lack of interest from his heirs in continuing the litigation.
Whether the existence of a concurrent appeal in the ejectment suit further rendered the damages action appeal moot.