ARMANDO LIM, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, AND THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE LAND AUTHORITY, RESPONDENTS.

In Civil Case No. 3710 of
the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, subsequently
indorsed to the Court of Agrarian Relations, Fourth Regional District,
pursuant to Section 154 of Republic Act
No. 3844, certain real properties belonging to petitioner Armando Lim were
sought to be expropriated by the Land Tenure Administra­tion, now the Land
Authority.  The Agrarian Court rendered
its decision on January 6, 1964.  A
motion filed by the Land Authority for extension of time to perfect its appeal
was opposed by Lim and denied by the said court on the ground that the decision
had already become final and executory.  The matter was then taken up to the Court of
Appeals on a petition for certiorari and mandamus to compel the lower court to
give due course to the appeal.  The
appellate court, in its resolution of June 23, 1964, gave due course to the petition.

Armando Lim thereupon
came to this Court on the instant petition for prohibition to stop the Court of Appeals from acting upon the petition for
certiorari and mandamus filed therein by the Land Authority,
contend­ing that since the amount in controversy in the expropria­tion case
exceeded P200,000.00, an appeal therein fell within
the jurisdiction of this Court and not of the Court of Appeals.  This is the issue disputed by the parties,
taking into consideration the provision of Republic Act No. 3844, Section 156,
which apparently gives the Court of Appeals appellate jurisdiction over cases
decided by Courts of Agrarian Relations involving questions of fact and
questions of fact and Law without any specific limitation as to the amount
involved.

On September 9, 1968,
Republic Act No. 5440 was approved, amending the Judiciary Act of 1948 by
removing altogether the value-in-controversy test with respect to the
allocation of appellate jurisdiction be­tween the Court of Appeals and the
Supreme Court in civil cases.  Since the
appeal from the basic expropriation case, if allowed to be taken, would go to
the Court of Appeals, necessarily the question of whether or not mandamus
should issue to compel the trial court to give due course to such appeal is
addressed to the Court of Appeals, the writ prayed for being in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction in the premises.

Wherefore, the instant petition is dismissed as now
moot and academic, and the writ of preliminary injunction issued by this Court
is dissolved.

Reyes, J.B.L. (Acting C.J.), Dizon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Fernando, and
Capistrano, JJ., concur.

Teehankee and Barredo, JJ.,
did not take part.

Concepcion, C.J., and Castro, JJ., on leave.