G.R. No. L-24148 October 20, 1970
PRIMO ZUÑIGA, petitioner-appellant, vs. PABLO MARQUEZ and EMILIA QUIOQUE, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioner-appellant Primo Zuñiga was the mortgagee and buyer at an extrajudicial foreclosure sale of a residential lot in Parañaque, Rizal, registered in the name of Enrique Legarda, Jr. During the redemption period, Zuñiga filed an unopposed petition for a writ of possession, which was granted by the Court of First Instance of Rizal on May 24, 1963. Enforcement of this writ was initially stayed by a preliminary injunction issued in a separate annulment case (civil case 477-R) filed by respondents-appellees, the spouses Pablo Marquez and Emilia Quioque, against Legarda and Zuñiga. After the injunction was lifted, an alias writ of possession was issued on September 2, 1963. Meanwhile, on August 27, 1963, the spouses Marquez moved to dissolve or suspend the writ, alleging they were the true owners of the property and that its registration in Legarda’s name was procured through fraud. On September 7, 1963, the spouses executed a letter authorizing Zuñiga to take possession, which he did. However, on October 19, 1963, they filed a “Motion to Admit Memorandum,” reiterating their claim and arguing that third parties in honest adverse possession cannot be dispossessed by such a writ. The lower court initially denied but later granted this motion on February 8, 1964, over Zuñiga’s objection that the court had lost jurisdiction as the redemption period had expired and the writ had already been executed. Zuñiga appealed this order. During the pendency of the appeal, on January 26, 1966, Pablo Marquez (his wife having died) filed a motion with the Supreme Court, praying to set aside the February 8, 1964 order and to declare Zuñiga the absolute owner of the property, which motion bore Zuñiga’s conformity.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should rule on the merits of the lower court’s order dated February 8, 1964, and whether it can grant the prayer to declare Zuñiga the absolute owner of the property.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that its resolution of February 1, 1966, which granted the first prayer of Pablo Marquez’s motion to set aside the February 8, 1964 order and all related orders, had rendered the discussion on the merits of said orders moot and academic. Regarding the second prayer to declare Zuñiga the owner, the Court ruled it could not be granted in this appeal because it involved an issue not litigated in the lower court and was completely irrelevant to the orders subject of the appeal. No pronouncement as to costs.