G.R. No. L-13836; May 20, 1960
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, EZRA P. NABUS, TOMAS NABUS, JUDITH BAYOTE, GADGAD COSTINA, BETTY CHACHAKEN, SIMY VISAYA, CHALMIS DAKIAS and MONANG CHACHAKEN, respondents.

FACTS

This is a petition for certiorari to reverse a decision of the Court of Appeals. The case originated as a forcible entry and detainer action in the justice of the peace court, involving a five-hectare portion of land within the Trinidad Agricultural High School reservation, which was created by executive orders in 1914 and used by the school. The Government of the Philippines (plaintiff) obtained a favorable judgment from the Court of First Instance of Baguio on March 17, 1953, ordering the defendants (led by Ezra P. Nabus) to vacate the land and cease interference. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals in April 1953. While the appeal was pending, the defendants filed a motion on March 7, 1956, alleging the case had become moot because President Proclamation No. 209 (dated October 21, 1955) had declared the land alienable and disposable, and a free patent had been issued to Ezra P. Nabus on December 1, 1955, based on an application filed June 7, 1954. The Court of Appeals granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, declaring the appeal moot and academic, and further declaring the issued Original Certificate of Title in favor of Ezra P. Nabus to be in full force and effect.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in: (1) considering evidence not presented at the trial in the Court of First Instance; and (2) relying on Proclamation No. 209 and the subsequent free patent application and issuance to dismiss the appeal and affirm the defendant’s title.

RULING

The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. It held that the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the appeal as moot. The supervening event—the President’s proclamation excluding the land from the school reservation—rendered the continuation of the forcible entry case unnecessary, as it removed the basis for the Government’s claim of possession based on the reservation. An appellate court may dismiss an appeal when pending questions have become moot due to events occurring after the trial court’s decision. However, the Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in the dispositive portion of its decision by declaring the defendant’s title in full force and effect. This pronouncement settled an issue (the validity of the title) that was never litigated in the trial court and over which the Government had not had its day in court. The Court of Appeals should have limited itself to dismissing the appeal without making such a substantive declaration on the title. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the dispositive part of the Court of Appeals’ decision but affirmed the dismissal of the appeal.