Thursday, March 26, 2026

GR L 20585; (September, 1963)

🔎 Search our Comprehensive Legal Repository…

G.R. No. L-20585

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-20585; September 30, 1963

ARSENIO VELUZ, petitioner,

vs.

HON. COURT OF APPEALS (Special First Division), HON. JESUS DE VERA, as Judge of First Instance of Manila, CITY SHERIFF OF MANILA and THE REINSURANCE COMPANY OF THE ORIENT, INC., respondents.

Marvin Hill & Associates for petitioner.

Ambrosio Padilla Law Offices for respondents.

R E S O L U T I O N

DIZON, J.:

Under date of July 16, 1963, respondent Reinsurance Company of the Orient, Inc. filed a manifestation to the effect that the purpose of this case for certiorari is to prevent the eviction of petitioner Arsenic Veluz from the premises involved in Civil Case No. 96678 of the Municipal Court of Manila entitled Reinsurance Company of the Orient, Inc. vs. Arsenic Veluz, etc., later appealed to the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 50962) and ultimately to the Court of Appeals (C.A.-G.R. No. 01295-R), that in the month of May, 1963, petitioner herein – defendant in the case already mentioned – vacated the leased premises without paying to the lessor or depositing in court the March to May, 1963 rentals; that the appeal interposed by him in the Court of Appeals was dismissed on July 9, 1963 for his failure to file his brief.

Upon the foregoing facts, the respondent Reinsurance Company of the Orient, Inc. prays for the dismissal of the present case on the ground that it has become moot. In view of the above facts, petitioner was required by our resolution of August 6, 1963 to comment, within ten (10) days from notice, on the aforesaid manifestation, said resolution having been served on his counsel on August 10, 1963. This notwithstanding, petitioner has not filed any comment up to this date.

WHEREFORE, finding the petition well founded, the present case is dismissed, with costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

Reyes, J.B.L., J., did not take part.


Batas Pinas

Hot this week

GR 223572; (November, 2020)

JENNIFER M. ENANO-BOTE, VIRGILIO A. BOTE, JAIME M. MATIBAG, WILFREDO L. PIMENTEL, TERESITA M. ENANO, PETITIONERS, VS. JOSE CH. ALVAREZ, CENTENNIAL AIR, INC. AND SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY, RESPONDENTS

The Lien and the Legacy: Fidelity to the Word in GR L 2024

The Lien and the Legacy: Fidelity to the...

The Prophetic Mandate and the Weight of Judgment in G.R. No. 272006

The Prophetic Mandate and the Weight of Judgment in...

The Rule on Collision (The Three Zones)

SUBJECT: The Rule on Collision (The Three Zones) I. INTRODUCTION...

GR 249027; (April, 2024) (Digest)

G.R. No. 249027, April 3, 2024Narciso B. Guinto (Released...

The Rule on ‘Beneficiary Designation’ (Revocable vs Irrevocable)

SUBJECT: The Rule on 'Beneficiary Designation' (Revocable vs Irrevocable) I....

The Concept of ‘The Suicidability Clause’ and the Two-Year Rule

SUBJECT: The Concept of 'The Suisidability Clause' and the...

The Rule on ‘No-Fault Indemnity Clause’ in Vehicle Accidents

SUBJECT: The Rule on 'No-Fault Indemnity Clause' in Vehicle...

The Concept of ‘Compulsory Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance’ (CPVLI)

SUBJECT: The Concept of 'Compulsory Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance'...

The Rule on ‘Constructive Total Loss’ and the ‘Abandonment’ Requirement

SUBJECT: The Rule on 'Constructive Total Loss' and the...

The Concept of ‘Total Loss’ vs ‘Partial Loss’ in Marine Insurance

SUBJECT: The Concept of 'Total Loss' vs 'Partial Loss'...

The Exceptions to the ‘Cash-and-Carry Rule’ (Credit, Installments, Estoppel)

SUBJECT: The Exceptions to the 'Cash-and-Carry Rule' (Credit, Installments,...

The Concept of ‘The Cash-and-Carry Rule’ (No Premium, No Policy)

SUBJECT: The Concept of 'The Cash-and-Carry Rule' (No Premium,...
spot_img

Related Articles

Popular Categories

spot_imgspot_img