Case Digest (G.R. No. L-22643)
Facts:
Eugenio P. Miculob v. Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch IX and J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-22643. August 30, 1973; the Supreme Court En Banc, Makasiar, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Eugenio P. Miculob sought to nullify three orders (April 25, 1963; January 22, 1964; March 17, 1964) of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-4246 (entitled “J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Eugenio P. Miculob”), which was an action for recovery of possession of about 300 square meters of land in the Tatalon Estate. Petitioner relied on Republic Acts Nos. 2616, 3453, and 3516, asserting that those laws authorized expropriation/subdivision and that Section 5 of R.A. No. 3516 suspended ejectment proceedings for two years upon a tenant’s motion.
The trial court repeatedly denied petitioner’s motions to suspend the ejectment proceedings; those refusals formed the subject of this petition. Private respondent J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. answered that the lot was not part of a landed estate, was covered by TCT No. 1267 in its name, that no expropriation case then concerned the property, and that R.A. No. 3516 was unconstitutional.
The Solicitor General initially reserved comment but later filed a submission (June 2, 1964) upholding the constitutionality of R.A. No. 3516 and advising that suspension of ejectment required compliance with Section 5 (payment of current rentals). Subsequent national developments altered the controversy: after Proclamation No. 1081 (martial law), the President issued Letter of Instructions No. 34 (Oct. 27, 1972) directing the People’s HomeSite and Housing Corporation (PHHC) to acquire the Tatalon Estate and to make funds available under R.A. No. 2616 for subdivision and distribution to bona fide occupants.
Following the issuance of LOI No. 34, the PHHC filed an expropriation complaint (docketed as Civil Case No. Q-17334, Republic of the Philippines v. J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc.) on January 23, 1973; the Court issued a writ of possession (order dated March 17, 1973) after the government deposited the required funds. The Supreme Court, by resolution, required the parties to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed as moot and academic in view of LOI No. 34. Private respondent moved for dismissal as moot; petitioner then conceded mootness and expressed no objection to ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the petition challenging the trial court’s orders moot and academic in view of Letter of Instructions No. 34 and the subsequent PHHC expropriation proceedings and writ of possession?
- If not moot, should the Court decide the constitutional validity of Republic Act No. 3516 and whether ejectment proceedings must be suspe...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)