You're currently signed in as:
User
Add TAGS to your cases to easily locate them or to build your SYLLABUS.
Please SIGN IN to use this feature.
https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c4006?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09
[ARSENIO VELUZ v. CA](https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c4006?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09)
{case:c4006}
Highlight text as FACTS, ISSUES, RULING, PRINCIPLES to generate case DIGESTS and REVIEWERS.
Please LOGIN use this feature.
Show printable version with highlights

[ GR No. L-20585, Sep 30, 1963 ]

ARSENIO VELUZ v. CA +

RESOLUTION

118 Phil. 1055

[ G.R. No. L-20585, September 30, 1963 ]

ARSENIO VELUZ, PETITIONER, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. JESUS DE VEYRA, CITY SHERIFF OF MANILA AND THE REINSURANCE CO. OF THE ORIENT, INC., RESPONDENTS.

RESOLUTION

DIZON, J.:

Under date of July  16, 1963, respondent  Reinsurance Company of the  Orient, Inc. filed a manifestation to the effect that the purpose of this case for certiorari is to prevent the eviction of petitioner Arsenio Veluz from the premises involved in Civil Case No. 96678  of the Municipal Court of  Manila  entitled Reinsurance Company of the Orient, Inc. vs. Arsenio Veluz, etc.,  later appealed to the Court of First  Instance of Manila (Civil  Case  No. 50962) and ultimately to the Court of Appeals (C.A. G.R. No. 31295-R); that in the month of May 1963, petitioner herein-defendant in the case already mentioned-vacated the leased premises without paying to the lessor or depositing in court the  March to May 1963 rentals; that the appeal interposed by him in the  Court of Appeals  was dismissed on  July  9, 1963 for his failure to file his brief.

Upon  the  foregoing  facts, the respondent  Reinsurance Company of the Orient, Inc. prays for the dismissal of the present case on the  ground that it has become moot.  In view  of the  above facts, petitioner was required by our resolution of August 6, 1963 to comment, within ten (10) days  from  notice,  on  the  aforesaid manifestation,  said resolution  having been served on his counsel on August 10, 1963. This notwithstanding, petitioner has not filed any comment up to this date.

Wherefore, finding the petition well founded, the present case is dismissed, with costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador,  Concepcion,  Paredes, Regala  and Makalintal, JJ. concur.


tags