Scribd
Upload
150 views4 pages

14 Chamber of Filipino Retailers vs. Villegas, G.R. No. L-29864 PDF

Uploaded by

pa0l0s
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
150 views4 pages

14 Chamber of Filipino Retailers vs. Villegas, G.R. No. L-29864 PDF

Uploaded by

pa0l0s
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

166

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Chamber of Filipino Retailers, Inc. vs. Villegas
No. L-29864. February 28, 1969.

CHAMBER OF FILIPINO RETAILERS, INC., NATIONAL


MARKET VENDORS ASSOCIATION, INC., AMBROSIO
ILAO, CRISPIN
_______________
4ART.

1116. Prescription already running before the effectivity of this

Code shall be governed by laws previously in force, but if since the time
this Code took effect the entire period herein required for prescription
should elapse, -the present Code shall be applicable even though by the
former laws a longer period might be required.
5ART.

1137. Ownership and other real rights over immovables also

prescribe through uninterrupted adverse possession thereof for thirty


years, without need of title or of good faith.
6ART.

1141. Real actions over immovables prescribe after thirty

years.
This provision is without prejudice to what is established for the
acquisition of ownership and other real rights by prescription.
167

VOL. 27, FEBRUARY 28, 1969

167

Chamber of Filipino Retailers, Inc. vs. Villegas

DE GUZMAN, JOSE J. LAPID, and FELICISIMO LAS,


petitioners, vs. HON. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, as City
Mayor of Manila, The CITY TREASURER and The CITY
OF MANILA, respondents.
Motion for reconsideration; Motion for reconsideration may be
denied by the Supreme Court when relief sought could be secured in

the lower court.The motion for reconsideration must be denied, for


the reason that the relief sought by herein petitioners could be
properly secured from the lower court in accordance with the
provisions of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. As a matter of fact,
petitioners motion for reconsideration expressly states that on
November 21, 1968 they filed in the latter case a motion to reinstate
the restraining order hereinbefore mentioned or to issue a writ of
preliminary injunction pending appeal, which motion, however, was
denied by the Supreme Court on the 26th of ,the same month and
year, It would appear, therefore, that the present action was filed as
an attempt to secure from the Supreme Court the same relief that
had already denied in G.R. No. L-29819.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION of Supreme Court


resolution.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
RESOLUTION
DIZON, J.:
Before Us is a motion for the reconsideration of our
resolution of December 3, 1968 dismissing the present
action for prohibition for lack of merit; appeal in due time
is the remedy.
It appears that on August 14, 1968 petitioners filed Civil
Case No. 73902 against Antonio J. Villegas, et al. in the
Court of First Instance of Manila to question the validity of
Ordinance No. 6696later superseded by Ordinance No.
6767increasing the rental fees of stalls in public markets
in said city. A restraining order was issued by said court
but the same was lifted on November 3, 1968 when, after
hearing the parties, the court rendered judgment
dismissing the case and declaring the questioned ordi168

168

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Chamber of Filipino Retailers, Inc. vs. Villegas

nance valid. On November 16, 1968 the therein petition-ers


perfected their appeal to this Court (G. R. No. L-29819).
Petitioners now allege that upon the lifting of the
restraining order mentioned heretofore, the respondents in

the casewho are the same respondents in the present


immediately sought to enforce the provisions of Ordinance
No. 6767 by making demands for the payment of the back
differentials in market rates together with the rentals at
the new rates, with the threat that petitioners would be
ejected summarily from their respective stalls if they
refused or failed to pay the rentals and back charges
demanded. After receiving such demand petitioners filed
the present action for prohibition to restrain collection of
rentals and possible ejectment.
Upon the above facts We reiterate our resolution
dismissing the present action f or prohibition and, as a
consequence, We deny the motion for reconsideration
mentioned heretofore, for the reason that the relief sought
by herein petitioners could be properly secured from the
lower court in accordance with the provisions of Rule 41 of
the Rules of Court, or from this Court in the appealed case
G.R. L-29864. As a matter of fact, petitioners motion for
reconsideration expressly states that on November 21, 1968
they filed in the latter case a motion to reinstate the
restraining order herein before mentioned or to issue a writ
of preliminary injunction pending appeal, which motion,
however, was denied by this Court on the 26th of the same
month and year. It would appear, therefore, that the
present action was filed as an attempt to secure from this
court the same relief that we had already denied to the
same parties in G.R. No. L-29819.
PREMISES
CONSIDERED,
the
motion
for
reconsideration filed by petitioners on December 5, 1968 is
hereby denied.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal,
Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Fernando, Capistrano,
Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concur.
Motion for reconsideration denied.
169

Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like