CASE FACTS ISSUES RULING

Topic:
Constitutional
Lorenzana was renting a parcel of land from
Rights and
the Manila Railroad Company (later from the
Privileges
Bureau of Lands). She later purchased the
land (San Lazaro Estate). She had the Yes, due process was observed.
property be rented to tenants occupying stalls.
Due to nonpayment of rents, she filed 12
G.R. No. L-37051 ejectment cases against her tenant. On the The SC ruled in favor of Cayetano and has affirmed the CA. It must be noted that respondent was not a party to any of the 12 ejectment
August 31, 1977 other hand, Cayetano was an occupant of a cases wherein the writs of demolition had been issued; she did not make her appearance in and during the pendency of these ejectment
parcel of land adjacent to that of Lorenzanas cases. Cayetano only went to court to protect her property from demolition after the judgment in the ejectment cases had become final and
ANITA U. land. Cayetano was renting the same from the executory. Hence, with respect to the judgment in said ejectment cases, Cayetano remains a third person to such judgment, which does
LORENZANA, Bureau of Lands. The lower court granted not bind her; nor can its writ of execution be informed against her since she was not afforded her day in court in said ejectment cases.
Whether or not
Lorenzanas ejectment cases.
petitioner, Cayetanos right The Court said further that the possessory aspect of the judgment of the Court of Appeals which we had affirmed has become moot and
to due process academic for the reasons adduced by her. Considering that the owner of the land, subject of the controversy, which is the government,
has been acting thru the Director of the Bureau of Building and Real Property Management with the approval of the Secretary of General Services,
violated. HAD TURNED OVER THE POSSESSION OF THE PREMISES UNDER A LEASE CONTRACT IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER, WHICH
Lorenzana then secured a writ of execution to
vs. forcibly eject her tenants but she included to LEASE IS ADMITTEDLY LEGAL AND LAWFUL, PETITIONER CAN NO LONGER BE COMPELLED TO RESTORE POSSESSION OF
eject Cayetanos property. Cayetano was not THE SAME TO THE PREVAILING PARTY, THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT HEREIN. TO DO SO WOULD CERTAINLY BE A VIOLATION
a party to the ejectment cases so she prayed OF PETITIONER S PROPERTY RIGHTS. BY REASON OF A LAWFUL ACT WHICH SUPERVENED AFTER THE INSTITUTION OF
for the lower court that her property be not THIS CASE, PETITIONERS POSSESSION OF THE PREMISES HAS BEEN LEGALIZED.
POLLY touched. The lower court denied Cayetanos
CAYETANO and petition. The CA, upon appeal, favored
COURT OF Cayetano. Lorenzana averred that Cayetano
APPEALS, is now a party to the ejectment cases as she
already brought herself to the Courts
respondents. jurisdiction by virtue of her appeal.