FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 207861. March 3, 2021.]
GABBY CHRISTIAN MISSIONARY SCHOOL OF KATIPUNAN VILLAGE OF WESTERN BICUTAN, INC., petitioner,vs. CITY OF TAGUIG FORT BONIFACIO SATELLITE OFFICE, HEADED BY ITS AREA MANAGER, PAUL MICHAEL C. VASQUEZ AND THE PHILIPPINE ARMY TASK GROUP BANTAY HEADED BY ITS COMMANDING OFFICER, COL. DANTE B. FERNANDEZ, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 3, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 207861 (Gabby Christian Missionary School of Katipunan Village of Western Bicutan, Inc. v. City of Taguig Fort Bonifacio Satellite Office, headed by its Area Manager, Paul Michael C. Vasquez and the Philippine Army Task Group Bantay Headed by its Commanding Officer, Col. Dante B. Fernandez). — Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 seeking to reverse the Decision 2 dated October 18, 2012 and the Resolution 3 dated June 20, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 92930, which affirmed the Order 4 dated November 28, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 153, stating that it does not need to go through a trial on the merits since it has already denied Gabby Christian Missionary School of Katipunan Village of Western Bicutan, Inc.'s (GCMS) application for a writ of preliminary injunction on July 27, 2007.
Facts of the Case
GCMS, a non-stock and non-profit educational institution, started its operations on a 300-square meter lot in Katipunan Village located at Western Bicutan, Taguig, Metro Manila in 2003. 5 Impelled by a genuine desire to serve its community, GCMS started providing free education to the children of Katipunan Village pursuant to the request of the Homeowners Association therein. 6
Sometime in 2005, the City of Taguig Fort Bonifacio Satellite Office (City of Taguig) and the Philippine Army Task Group Bantay (Philippine Army) asked GCMS to demolish its school building because the land on which it stood is government property. More specifically, the land is a part of the National Shrine Services and is a part of the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB). 7 GCMS was given until July 6, 2005 to voluntarily demolish the building or a summary demolition will be conducted. 8
In an attempt to protect its interests, GCMS filed a Petition for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction with Prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or a Writ of Preliminary injunction with the RTC Pasig on July 5, 2005. 9 GCMS argued that allowing the demolition of its school building will, in no uncertain terms, cause grave and irreparable injury not only to its institution but also to the 121 students studying therein. 10 To strengthen its claim, GCMS presented permits from the Department of Education (DepEd) 11 and the City of Taguig allowing it to conduct its operations. 12
On July 28, 2005, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), on behalf of the City of Taguig and the Philippine Army, filed an Answer 13 arguing that GMCS's petition should be dismissed for its lack of merit. 14First, the OSG reiterated that the land on which the school building stands is a part of the LNMB, which is primarily and exclusively devoted as a cemetery by virtue of Proclamation No. 208, series of 1967, issued by Former President Ferdinand Marcos. 15Second, the OSG introduced a document which showed GCMS' admission that it had no right over the land. On May 24, 2002, Paulito B. Logroño (Logroño), the President of GCMS, wrote a letter to Teresita Cuevas of the Philippine Veterans Office (PVO). In that letter, Logroño asked for the PVO's permission for the construction a school building despite the land being under government supervision. 16 On July 2, 2002, the PVO replied by stating his request could not be accommodated since the use of the area was categorically limited by law. 17Lastly, the OSG argued that the permits from DepEd and the City of Taguig did not give GCMS a right to use the land since these permits did not change the fact that the latter was a part of the LNMB. 18
On July 27, 2007, the RTC issued its Order, 19 denying GCMS' application for the writ of injunction. The RTC stated that the land used by GCMS was undoubtedly part of the LNMB — a fact even admitted by GCMS itself. 20 The trial court also explained that the party applying for an injunctive writ must show a right in esse. Here, since there was no dispute about GCMS' ineligibility to erect its building on the land, then this requirement was clearly not met. 21 Moreover, the RTC held that GCMS was an informal settler of the land; and, a public nuisance which can be abated even without a judicial proceeding. 22
In the meantime, the Philippine Army proceeded with the summary demolition of GCMS' building on September 7, 2007. 23
GCMS then filed a motion reconsideration which was subsequently denied by the RTC. 24 Undaunted, GCMS elevated its case to the CA. 25
On October 18, 2012, the CA issued its Decision 26 affirming the order of the RTC. First, the CA held that GCMS failed to show the existence of a right in esse, since the parcel of land involved was undisputedly part of the area reserved for the LNMB. 27Second, the CA held that Section 5 (c) of Republic Act No. 7279, otherwise known as the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992, does not apply herein. 28 Section 5 (c) requires that the land in dispute must not have been used for the purpose which it has been reserved for. However, several individuals, including former Presidents Carlos P. Garcia and Diosdado Macapagal, have already been buried therein. Furthermore, Section 5 (e) of the same law expressly excludes cemeteries and memorial parks from its coverage. 29
GCMS subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied by the CA. 30
Aggrieved by the CA's decision, GCMS now comes to this Court praying that a writ of injunction be issued to prevent the demolition of its school building. 31
Ruling of the Court
The Court denies GCMS' petition because it has been rendered moot and academic by the demolition of its school building on September 7, 2007. It is a well-settled rule that the court's exercise of its power of adjudication must be based on an actual case or controversy — one which involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution. 32 Where the issue has become moot and academic, it necessarily follows that the justiciable controversy ceases; and, that an adjudication thereon will have no use nor practical value. 33 The courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions for the sake of scholarly interest, regardless of how intellectually challenging they may be. 34
Since the building sought to be protected by GCMS has been demolished, it naturally follows that this case — one which prays for the prohibition of such demolition — is already moot and academic.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant case is DISMISSED for being MOOT and ACADEMIC.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 14-17.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes (former Member of the Court), with the concurrence of Associate Justices Socorro B. Inting and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez; id. at 20-30.
3.Id. at 31-32.
4.Id. at 139-146.
5.Id. at 33-34.
6.Id. at 34-35, 57.
7.Id. at 35.
8.Id. at 57.
9.Id. at 33-38.
10.Id. at 37.
11.Id. at 50.
12.Id. at 51.
13.Id. at 68-78.
14.Id. at 77.
15.Id. at 72.
16.Id. at 81.
17.Id. at 82.
18.Id. at 75.
19.Id. at 122.
20.Id. at 125.
21.Id. at 127.
22.Id. at 125.
23.Id. at 115-117.
24.Id. at 23.
25.Id. at 147.
26.Supra note 2.
27.Rollo, p. 25.
28.Id. at 28.
29.Id. at 29.
30.Id. at 31.
31.Id. at 14.
32.Republic v. Tan, 470 Phil. 322, 331 (2004).
33.Id. at 331-332.
34.Id. at 332.