ANTONIO M. SAMIA, PETITIONER, VS. HON. GREGORIO N. GARCIA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for review by certiorari a decision. of the Court of
Appeals, The background of the instant case is stated by the Court of
Appeals in its decision, thus:

“On
February 18, 19591 Antonio M. Samia instituted in the municipal court
of Manila an action for ejectment and recovery of back rentals against
Tiburcio Alvarez, Fernando Atengco, Olimpio Atengco, Paciencia Atengco,
Juana Caingat, Fernando de la Cruz, Juana de la Cruz, Pedro David,
Macario Dizon, Arabrosio Mangsal and Venancio Mendoza. Invoking the
provisions of Republic Act No. 1162, as amended, said defendants moved
to suspend trial of the case. On June 22, 1959, despite opposition of
plaintiff, Judge Gregorio N. Garcia, entered an order suspending the
proceedings for two years. The suspension waS, howevers made subject to
the condition that defendants would liquidate their rents in arrears
and pay their current rentals, non-compliance with which would cause
the lifting of the suspension. Plaintiff’s effort to have the order
reconsidered was unsuccessful. On August 11, 1959 plaintiff filed a
motion also in the municipal court to lift the order of suspension
alleging that defendants failed to comply with the condition thereof.
By order of September 12, 1959 entered by Judge Ramon A. Icasiano, the
motion was denied.

“On November 4, 1959, plaintiff filed
in the Court of First Instance of Manila a petition for certiorari and
mandamus against the aforenamed judges and defendants alleging that
said judges acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discretion in issuing their respective orders and neglected to
perform an act specifically enjoined upon them by law by refusing to
proceed with the trial of the ejectment case, and praying that said
orders be annulled and that respondent Judges be commanded to set the
ejectment case for hearing and proceed with the trial thereof.”

After hearing, the Court of First Instance of Manila granted the
petition in a decision the dispositive portion of which reads as
follows:

“In view whereof, petition granted and the Court orders that ejectment
proceedings should go ahead until and unless the conditions required
have been fully complied with.”

Not
satisfied with the above decision, respondents-defendants appealed to
the Court of Appeals. In the Court of Appeals the decision was
reversed; hence, this petition to review by certiorari.

The parties do not dispute that the land subject of the ejectment case
in the municipal court is included as one of the lands sought to be
expropriated in Civil Case No. 33156 of the Court of First Instance of
Manila. There is also no dispute that the order suspending the trial of
the ejectment case was solely predicated on the filing of said
condemnation proceedings (Civil Case No. 33156) by the Government, in
which proceedings the land involved in the ejectment case is included.

In a motion to remand the case to the court of origin, the
petitioner-appellant points out that the expropriation proceeding
(Civil Case No. 33156) was dismissed by the trial court but the
Government appealed the order of dismissal to this Court, the same
being docketed as G.R. No. L-17569; and that the appeal (G.R. No.
L-17569) has already been decided by Us wherein We sustained the order
of the trial court dismissing the expropriation proceedings. Our final
decision in the case, Republic of the Philippines vs.
Samia, et al., G.R. No. L-17569, was promulgated May 31, 1963. We
dismissed the expropriation proceedings, affirming the decision of the
Court of First Instance, on the ground that the property could not be
subject to expropriation. It is evident that the basis for the order of
suspension no longer exists; hence, the trial of the ejectment case
should be allowed to proceed.

WHEREFORE, the decision
of the Court of Appeals is hereby set aside and the original case is
hereby ordered remanded to the municipal court of Manila for the
continuation of the ejectment case in accordance with this decision.
Costs of this appeal shall be taxed against the defendants in the
ejectment case.

SO ORDERED.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Parades, Dizon, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.