THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ANITA U. LORENZANA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Respondent Anita U. Lorenzana was the
successful bidder in 1953 in the public sale of a quonset
hut situated on a lot on Quezon
Boulevard; Manila,
which was part of the San Lazaro Estate administered
by the Director of Lands.  Be­fore the
sale she had a contract for the lease of the site, entered into with the Manila Railroad Company, which was
then in occupancy thereof.  The lease was
impliedly recognized by the Bureau of Lands, to which the rents were being
paid.  The quonset hut was destroyed by accidental fire in 1958,
and Lorenzana thereupon filed a lease application
with the Bureau of Lands, which was approved in principle^[1]
for an area of 700 square meters.  It
seems, however, that a question subsequently developed because a number of
former tenants of respondent Lorenzana also filed a lease application for an area of 360 square meters of the
same property.

On August
25, 1959 Lorenzana obtained a building permit from the City Engineer
of Manila for the construc­tion of a three-storey
building on the aforesaid lot.  The
construction was already well-advanced when the City En­gineer, upon repeated
representations of the Bureau of Lands, sent Lorenzana
a letter dated October 5, 1959, sus­pending the construction work, with a
threat to revoke the permit altogether if she refused to comply.  The order of suspension triggered the
original proceeding in the Court of First Instance of Manila, which was a
petition filed by Lorenzana against the City Engineer
to enjoin him “from going through with his threatened act to revoke
petitioner’s building permit or to suspend the force and effect of re­spondent’s
letter of suspension (sic).”  As prayed for in the petition a writ of
preliminary injunction was issued by the Court. 
The Director of Lands intervened and asked that the order granting the
writ be reconsidered and that the suspension order be maintained “until
the suit (be­tween the petitioner and the intervenor)
involving the rights of petitioner to lease and occupy portion of the San Lazaro Estate is finally decided by the Court of First
Instance of Manila in Civil Case No. 41295 pending in Branch 2 of this
Court.”

After trial judgment was
rendered for petitioner Lorenzana, respondent here,
maintaining the injunction pre­viously issued. 
The Director of Lands appealed, but the City Engineer did not.  On January 31, 1963 the Court of Appeals affirmed on four
grounds, to wit:         

“(1) The
judgment below making permanent the
writ of preliminary in-, junction against respondent City En­gineer of Manila
has become final with respect to said respondent who, did not appeal.

(2) The case has become moot. 
The construction of Lorenzana’s three-story
building under the building permit has been finished.  And accord­ing to appellee,
after the perfection of this present appeal, the Director of Lands had already
openly agreed and acceded to petitioner’s making an additional fourth floor to her present
three-story building.  Hence, the issue
in this appeal had al­ready been rendered moot and abrogated by the subsequent
acts of the x x x intervenor-appellant Director
of Lands.

(3) Lorenzana was at least in material
possession with the per­mission of the Bureau of Lands.  The conflict of rights between Lorenzana and the Bureau of lands with respect to
her alleged right to build and to the improvements, which conflict is Governed by stipulation and by the Civil Code,
should be threshed out in an ordinary civil action.  It was no concern of the City Engineer of
Manila who has already issued the building permit.

(4) Respondent City Engineer of Manila had earlier rendered a determination, which in our opinion
is correct, that, “it is the ministerial
duty of the City Engineer to issue a building permit when the application and
the plans are in conformity with the requirements of building laws and
ordinances;” that, “As long as there is no violation of
building ordinances in the pro­cess of construction, this Office has no ground
for suspending the building permit issued,” and that, “suspension or
revocation of per­mit without cause would be an ar­bitrary act and abuse of
discre­tion.”

The case is now before us
on a petition for review by certiorari. 
We see no sufficient reason to reverse the decision of the Court of
Appeals.  Whether or not the suspension
of the building permit issued by the City En­gineer of Manila should be
insisted upon is a matter that is primarily addressed to the discretion of that
official.  And his failure to appeal
shows that he was agreeable to the maintenance of said permit.  The judgment of the trial court has become
final as to him, and the effect is as if
he himself had set aside the order of suspension.

From petitioner’s motion for intervention presented below it
appears that his interest was to have the said order maintained.  If, as he now avers in the instant petition
before us, he is opposed to the prosecution of the construction work on the
building of respondent, the Court of
Appeals is correct in holding
that the case has become moot in
view of its finding that the
construction of the three-storey building under the building permit has been
finished.

Whether or not the construction should be demolished, as prayed
for by petitioner, is a question that cannot and should not be litigated in
this case, which concerns only the building permit issued and then suspended by
the City Engineer, but rather, as correctly held by the Court of Appeals, in a
separate action where the right of respondent Lorenzana
to lease and occupy the lot on which the building stands may be threshed out.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J, Reyes, JBL, Dizon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro,
Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

^[1]
As found in the decision of respondent Court of
Appeals, p. 5.