Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-18157 September 29, 1962
DOLORES EVANGELISTA, ET AL., petitioners,
vs.
THE MUNICIPALITY OF PAOMBONG and HON. FLORENCIO MORENO, as Secretary of Public Works and Communications, respondents.
Marcelino Lontok, Santiago F. Alidio Industrial Marcelino Lontok, Jr. for petitioners-appellants.
The provincial Fiscal and Solicitor General for respondents-appellees.
DIZON, J.: .
Dolores Evangelista and the other petitioners inherited from the deceased spouses Eugenio Evangelista and Petronia Lim, in parcel of registered land converted into fishpond located in sitio Mariablo, Paombong, Bulacan. On July 14, 1948, the municipal council of said municipality, pursuant to Section 2 of Republic Act No. 2056, passed Resolution No. 94, Series of 1958, amended by Resolution No. 118 of August 28, 1958, requesting the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources to order the investigation of the boundaries of fishponds found within the municipality to ascertain whether portions of navigable rivers and creeks were included therein.
Acting upon the resolution mentioned above, the Secretary of Public Works and Communications — to whom, apparently the same was referred — notified petitioner that an investigation and ocular inspection of their fishpond would be conducted to verify the location of a navigable stream known as Estero Kaylaki.
While said investigation was pending, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari, with preliminary injunction, with the Court of First Instance of Bulacan (Civil Case No. 1968) against the Municipality of Paombong and the Secretary of Public Works and Communications to prevent the latter from proceeding with the investigation, on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to review the decision of, and decree issued by the Court of First Instance of Bulacan in Registration Proceedings No. 533 declaring the late Evangelista spouses the owners of the fishpond subject-matter thereof and that the "Estero Kaylaki" was not included in said fishpond.
After due trial, the Court rendered its decision dismissing the petition and dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction theretofore issued. Hence petitioners' present appeal on purely questions of law.1awphîl.nèt
On August 16, 1951, petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground that the same had become academic by reason of the decision of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications dated May 15, 1961 dismissing the complaint filed against them upon a finding that they had not encroached on any portion of the Estero Kaylaki.
Commenting on the motion to dismiss the case, respondents submit that petitioners' appeal — not the case — should be dismissed.
As adverted to above, what is before us is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan dismissing Civil Case No. 1968. Said appeal, therefore, is what should be dismissed, so that, in view thereof, the vacated decision shall be revived.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is dismissed, without costs.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
