GR L 21655; (September, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21655 September 29, 1967
FERNANDO CORPUZ, plaintiff-appellant, vs. HON. DAMIAN L. JIMENEZ, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
FACTS
In May 1958, appellee J.M. Tuason & Co. Inc. filed an ejectment complaint against appellant Fernando Corpuz in the Municipal Court of Quezon City (Civil Case No. 4689), alleging illegal entry and construction on its land. After several postponements, the court set the case for trial on August 11, 1959. Appellant and his counsel failed to appear on that date. The court proceeded to hear appellee’s evidence and rendered judgment ordering appellant to vacate the premises and pay reasonable rents. The judgment became final, and a writ of execution was issued on October 21, 1959. On November 9, 1959, appellant filed a motion to lift the writ, arguing that appellee’s filing of another complaint for recovery of possession of the same land in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Civil Case No. Q-4341) on April 24, 1959, constituted an implied waiver or abandonment of the first case. The municipal court denied this motion on December 9, 1959. Appellant then filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Civil Case No. Q-4916) seeking to annul the municipal court’s decision and its order denying the motion to lift the writ. The lower court denied this petition on March 22, 1960. During the appeal to the Court of Appeals, appellee moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that appellant had voluntarily vacated the premises by removing his house, rendering the issues moot. Appellant failed to answer this motion. The case was subsequently certified to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the appeal should be dismissed on the ground that the issues have become moot and academic due to appellant’s voluntary vacation of the premises.
RULING
Yes, the appeal is dismissed. The Supreme Court treated appellant’s failure to answer appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal as an implied acquiescence to the allegation that he had voluntarily vacated the premises by removing his house and other constructions. Consequently, the issues raised in the appeal were rendered moot and academic. The Court dismissed the appeal without costs.