SUBJECT TOPIC DIGEST MAKER
Consti 1 What courts may exercise Niel Fuentes
judicial review
J.M Tuason v CA
Reyes, J.B.L., J.
Docket Number: G.R. No. L-18128 Dec. 26, 1961
Petitioner(s): J.M. Tuason & Co., Hon. Hermogenes Caluag, Hon. Nicasio Yatco
Respondent(s): CA, Bruna Rosete, Buenaventura Dizon
FACTS
• Record shows that the judgements rendered in 1955 by the CFI-Rizal in its ejectment cases
Q-1401 and Q-1402, were, upon regular appeal, subsequently affirmed in toto by the CA in
its cases CA-GR 16265-66-R.
• CFI-Rizal, after the finality of CA decision, issued writs of execution of the judgment
against Rosete and Dizon, as prayed for by private petitioner.
• Nov. 19, 1960, CFI issued demolition orders on the houses of the evictees or judgment
debtors.
• Nov. 16, 3 days before issuance of demolition order by CFI, petitioner applied for a writ of
prohibiton in the CFI-QC against LTA, Auditor General, and the SolGen, to restrain them
from instituting expropriation proceedings of the petitioner’s land in QC, known as the
“Tatalon Estate”
• Petitioners claim that RA 2616, the law w/c authorized the expropriation proceedings
without executive approval, was unconstitutional, null and void, as legislation aimed at
depriving them of their land in favor of the squatters and occupants, even if the property
had already been subdivided and its lots were being sold to the public.
• Upon the request of petitioners, QC CFI Judge Caluag issued an ex parte write of
preliminary injunction upon the filing of the bond of Php20,000.
• After the injunction was issued, evictees in QC cases Q-1401 and Q-1402 petitioned the
CFI to suspend the order of demolition of their houses on the grounds that they are tenants
of the Tatalon Estate and they were banking on the provisions of RA 2616, Sec. 4.
• Judge Nicasio Yatco of CFI-QC denied the suspension because no expropriation
proceedings had been filed.
• Evictees raised the issue to the CA and states that:
o Judge Caluag gravely abused his discretion when he issued the preliminary
injunction in the prohibition case to restrain the initiation of condemnation
proceedings over the Tatalon Estate. And that, as beneficiaries to Sec. 4 of RA
2616, they are entitled to the land.
o Judge Yatco abused his discretion in refusing to suspend the demolition
proceedings until the expropriation case was terminated.
• CA issued a preliminary injunction in favor of the evictees.
• Petitioners contend this on the grounds that:
o CA’s ability to issue injunctions was only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction
o Orders of execution issued by QC court are not appealable
o Prohibition proceedings involve a question of constitutionality of RA 2616
o CA had no jurisdiction to pass over the questioned orders and that its injunction
was improperly issued.
• CA refused to lift the preliminary injunction and on Feb 26. The LTA was given the time to
file the complaint for expropriation as authorized by RA 2616.
• Thus, the present petition of certiorari to the SC.
ISSUES and RATIONALE
• W/N the CA have jurisdiction to lift, quash, and dissolve the preliminary writ of
injunction issued by Judge Caluag in the prohibition case No. Q-5527.
o The writ of injunction issued by CA is null and void for want of
jurisdiction.
o Authority of said court is expressly limited by statute to their issuance in aid of
its appellate jurisdiction and it has been repeatedly ruled by us that the
jurisdiction of the CA to issue such writs must be based on the existence of a
right to appeal to it from the judgment on the merits in the main case.
o W/o such right to appeal, the CA is w/o jurisdiction to interfere. The issuance of
orders for execution after the judgment of ejectment had become final are not
appealable, as the CA itself ruled.
o Issue involved is on the constitutionality of RA 2616, CA could not take
cognizance since said Court clearly had no authority to interfere.
o Inferior courts have jurisdiction in cases involving constitutionality of any treaty
or law but the SC will have to exercise its power of appellate review of final
judgments of inferior courts.
• W/N Judge Caluag acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing the preliminary
injunction in the prohibition case?
o No. Private property shall not be taken for public use w/o just compensation
according to the Bill of Rights
o In the present case, the government does not have the funds to pay for the private
property of Tuason and Co., Tatalon Estate.
DISPOSITION
• CFI-QC is directed to hear and resolve the prohibition case No. Q-5527 with all practicable
dispatch.
CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINION
REVIEW NOTES