SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-33669 March 31, 1977

HEIRS OF D. TUAZON, INC., HON. WENCESLAO G. CORNEJO, Judge of the City Court of Manila, Branch V, and CITY SHERIFF of Manila, Petitioners,
vs.
HON. SIMEON GOPENGCO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XXV, and ENRIQUE C. SALINAS, doing business under the name and style of KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN RESTAURANT and/or HERMITAGE, Respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

AQUINO, J.: chanrobles virtual law library

The city court of Manila in a decision dated March 9, 1970 ordered Enrique C. Salinas, doing business under the name of Kentucky Fried Chicken Restaurant, to vacate a lot located at Ramon Magsaysay Boulevard, Manila, owned by the Heirs of D. Tuason, Inc., and to pay back rentals (Civil Case No. 186982).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The judgment became final. To enjoin the execution of that judgment, Salinas filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila a petition for certiorari and prohibition against the Heirs of D. Tuason, Inc., the city court and the sheriff of Manila (Civil Case No. 80223).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The Court of First Instance enjoined the execution of the city court's judgment but, on motion to set aside filed by the Heirs of D. Tuason, Inc., the lower court dissolved the injunction. Salinas in turn filed a motion for reconsideration.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The lower court in its order of March 2, 1971 revived the injunction. That order was assailed in the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition. Salinas answered the petition. The case was submitted for decision on July 23, 1971.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On December 14, 1971 the Heirs of D. Tuason, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that in Civil Case No. 80223 the said firm and Salinas had entered into a compromise which was approved by the lower court in its decision of October 18, 1971. Salinas manifested that he had no objection to the dismissal of the petition.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, this case is dismissed for having become moot and academic. No costs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.