Case Digest (G.R. No. L-11014)
Facts:
Victoriana Espiritu, Jorge Robles, Josefina de Vera, Faustino Quintives, Leonor Briones, Evangelina Patacsil, Teofilo Ancheta and Brigida Mangonon v. The Municipal Council, Municipal Mayor and the Chief of Police of Pozorrubio, Pangasinan, G.R. No. L-11014, January 21, 1958, the Supreme Court En Banc, Montemayor, J., writing for the Court.
During World War II the municipal market building of Pozorrubio was destroyed. After Liberation, market vendors erected temporary stalls and even small dwellings on a portion of the town plaza; the Municipal Treasurer collected from these stall occupants a fee of P0.25 per square meter per month. When the municipal market was later rehabilitated, the plaza occupants refused to transfer to the rehabilitated market building.
Civic groups in Pozorrubio (the Woman's Club, the Puericulture Center) and the Provincial Board petitioned the Municipal Council to remove the stalls from the plaza to convert the space into a children's park; a circular from the Secretary of the Interior also called attention to the alleged illegality of the stalls. The Municipal Council thereupon adopted Resolution No. 209, Series of 1951, ordering the occupants to remove their structures within sixty days.
Eight of the persons occupying the plaza (the present petitioners/appellants) filed a petition for prohibition in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan against the Municipal Council, the Municipal Mayor and the Chief of Police; the trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction pendente lite. The parties agreed that the case be decided on the pleadings and submitted no evidence.
On April 28, 1956 the Court of First Instance dismissed the petition for prohibition, lifted the preliminary injunction, and ordered the removal of the appellants' stalls from the public plaza within ten days. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.
After oral argument, counsel for the appellees manifested (Sept. 16, 1957) that several months following argument the appellants had voluntarily vacated the plaza and the municipality had begun erecting concrete fences on the vacated portion, asking that the appeal be dis...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the appeal moot because the appellants voluntarily vacated the plaza after oral argument, warranting dismissal of the appeal?
- Did the appellants have any legal right (lease, contract or other proprietary right) to occupy and construct stalls and residences on the public plaza, thereby preventing the Municipal Council fr...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)