DOLORES EVANGELISTA, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. THE MUNICIPALITY OF PAOMBONG AND HON. FLORENCIO MORENO, AS SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, RESPONDENTS.

Dolores Evangelista and the other petitioners inherited from the deceased
spouses Eugenio Evangelista and Petronia Lim, a parcel of registered land
converted into a 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 oi 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 petitioners
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.

On August 16, 1961, 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
petitioner’s 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.