G.R. No. L-21059 July 29, 1968
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ANITA U. LORENZANA, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Anita U. Lorenzana was the successful bidder in a 1953 public sale of a quonset hut situated on a lot on Quezon Boulevard, Manila, part of the San Lazaro Estate administered by the Director of Lands. She had a pre-existing lease contract for the site with the Manila Railroad Company, which was impliedly recognized by the Bureau of Lands as rents were paid to it. The quonset hut was destroyed by fire in 1958. Lorenzana then filed a lease application with the Bureau of Lands, which was approved in principle for 700 square meters, though a question later developed as former tenants also filed a lease application for part of the same property. On August 25, 1959, Lorenzana obtained a building permit from the City Engineer of Manila to construct a three-storey building on the lot. Construction was well-advanced when the City Engineer, upon repeated representations from the Bureau of Lands, sent Lorenzana a letter dated October 5, 1959, suspending the construction work and threatening to revoke the permit. This suspension order triggered Lorenzana’s petition in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the City Engineer to enjoin him from revoking the permit or suspending its effect, and a writ of preliminary injunction was issued. The Director of Lands intervened, asking for reconsideration of the writ and maintenance of the suspension until a pending civil case involving Lorenzana’s right to lease the property was decided. After trial, judgment was rendered for Lorenzana, maintaining the injunction. The Director of Lands appealed, but the City Engineer did not. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision on January 31, 1963.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s judgment that maintained the injunction against the City Engineer’s suspension of Lorenzana’s building permit.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, finding no sufficient reason to reverse it. The Court held that whether the suspension of the building permit should be insisted upon was primarily addressed to the discretion of the City Engineer, whose failure to appeal showed he was agreeable to maintaining the permit. The judgment had become final as to him. Furthermore, the case had become moot as the construction of the three-storey building under the permit had been finished. The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the question of whether the construction should be demolished could not be litigated in this case, which concerned only the building permit, but should be threshed out in a separate action where Lorenzana’s right to lease and occupy the lot could be determined.