J. M. TUASON & CO., INC.

V.

COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. L-18128

(In so far as our topic is concerned)

Syllabus:

COURT OF APPEALS; ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL WRITS; BASIS OF JURISDICTION. — The jurisdiction of the
Court of Appeals to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, injunction, certiorari and habeas corpus
must be based on the existence of a right to appeal to it from the judgment on the merits in the
main case. Without such right of appeal, the Court of Appeals is without jurisdiction to interfere,
for that Court is purely a creature of statute.

Facts:

The record shows that the judgments rendered in 1955 by the Court of First
Instance of Rizal, in its ejectment case, were, upon regular appeal, subsequently affirmed in toto
by the Court of Appeals in its cases "Tuason & Company, Inc. vs. Bruna Rosete and Buenaventura
Dizon". The Court of First Instance, after the appellate court's decision became final and upon
return of the records in due course, issued writs of execution of the judgment against Rosete and
Dizon, as prayed for by the landowner Tuason & Company. Subsequently, on November 19, 1960,
the Court of First Instance issued orders of demolition of the houses of the evictees or judgment
debtors. A few days previously, on November 16, 1960, the landowner J. M. Tuason & Company
had also applied for a writ of prohibition in the Court of First Instance of Quezon City against the
Land Tenure Administration, the Auditor General, and the Solicitor General, to restrain them from
instituting expropriation proceedings of the petitioner Company's land in Quezon City, generally
known as the "Tatalon Estate", as expressly and specifically authorized by Republic Act No. 2616,
that became law, without executive approval, on August 3, 1959; the Company claiming mainly
that the Republic Act was unconstitutional, null and void, as legislation aimed at depriving it of its
property for the benefit of squatters and occupants, even if the property had been actually
subdivided, and its lots were being sold to the public; and that respondent officers threatened to
enforce said law by initiating expropriation proceedings. At petitioner's request, Judge
Hermogenes Caluag of the Quezon City Court of First Instance (to whom the prohibition case was
assigned) issued an ex parte writ of preliminary injunction on November 18, 1960, upon the filing
of a bond of P20,000. After injunction was issued, the evictees in Quezon City cases, Bruna Rosete
and Tranquilino Dizon, petitioned the Court of First Instance to suspend the order of demolition of
their houses, on the grounds that they were tenants of the Tatalon Estate; that Republic Act No.
2616, after specifically authorizing the expropriation of the Tatalon Estate

Since the issuance of orders for execution after the judgment of ejectment had become final are
not appealable, as the Court of Appeals itself has ruled, otherwise litigations would never end;
and since the prohibition case No. Q-5527 involved the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 2616,
an issue of which the Court of Appeals could not take cognizance, said Court clearly had no
authority to interfere by prerogative writ in either litigation, for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Issue:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction to lift, quash, and dissolve
the preliminary writ of injunction in the prohibition case?

Ruling:

The court is satisfied that the writ of injunction issued by the Court of Appeals in is null and void for
want of jurisdiction. The authority of said Court to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, injunction,
certiorari and habeas corpus is expressly limited by statute to their issuance in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction (Judiciary Act, sec. 30), and it has been repeatedly ruled by us that the jurisdiction of
the Court of Appeals to issue such writs must be based on the existence of a right to appeal to it
from the judgment on the merits in the main case. Without such right of appeal, the Court of
Appeals is without jurisdiction to interfere, for that Court is purely a creature of statute. Since the
issuance of orders for execution after the judgment of ejectment had become final are not
appealable, as the Court of Appeals itself has ruled, otherwise litigations would never end; and
since the prohibition case No. Q-5527 involved the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 2616, an
issue of which the Court of Appeals could not take cognizance, said Court clearly had no authority
to interfere by prerogative writ in either litigation, for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Judge Caluag
of Quezon City was, therefore, not bound by the writs so issued by the Court of Appeals.

Held:

In Case G.R. No. L-18128. J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., setting aside the writ
of preliminary injunction issued by the Court of Appeals in its case CA-G.R. No. 28842-R, the same
being null and void for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Court to take cognizance of said case.