Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 145 views

    Longino V General

    Uploaded by

    Aprille S. Alviarne
    The petitioner Longino occupied a portion of property owned by Serrano without paying rent. Serrano allowed this on the condition that Longino would help her secure a lease from PNR for the property. However, Longino then applied directly with PNR for the lease. Serrano filed a complaint with COSLAP demanding the lease go to her and Longino's eviction. COSLAP ruled in Serrano's favor. Longino then filed a petition for prohibition against this in the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court upheld this, finding the petition for prohibition was not the proper remedy as the structures on the property had already been demolished, so the issue was moot.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Longino V General

    Uploaded by

    Aprille S. Alviarne
    145 views1 page
    The petitioner Longino occupied a portion of property owned by Serrano without paying rent. Serrano allowed this on the condition that Longino would help her secure a lease from PNR for the property. However, Longino then applied directly with PNR for the lease. Serrano filed a complaint with COSLAP demanding the lease go to her and Longino's eviction. COSLAP ruled in Serrano's favor. Longino then filed a petition for prohibition against this in the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court upheld this, finding the petition for prohibition was not the proper remedy as the structures on the property had already been demolished, so the issue was moot.

    Original Description:

    Remedial Law Review Case Digest

    Original Title

    Longino v General

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner Longino occupied a portion of property owned by Serrano without paying rent. Serrano allowed this on the condition that Longino would help her secure a lease from PNR for the property. However, Longino then applied directly with PNR for the lease. Serrano filed a complaint with COSLAP demanding the lease go to her and Longino's eviction. COSLAP ruled in Serrano's favor. Longino then filed a petition for prohibition against this in the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court upheld this, finding the petition for prohibition was not the proper remedy as the structures on the property had already been demolished, so the issue was moot.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    145 views1 page

    Longino V General

    Uploaded by

    Aprille S. Alviarne
    The petitioner Longino occupied a portion of property owned by Serrano without paying rent. Serrano allowed this on the condition that Longino would help her secure a lease from PNR for the property. However, Longino then applied directly with PNR for the lease. Serrano filed a complaint with COSLAP demanding the lease go to her and Longino's eviction. COSLAP ruled in Serrano's favor. Longino then filed a petition for prohibition against this in the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court upheld this, finding the petition for prohibition was not the proper remedy as the structures on the property had already been demolished, so the issue was moot.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    93. ESPERANZA S. LONGINO, vs. ATTY. LINA A. GENERAL, G.R. No.

    147956 February 16, 2005

    PURPOSE AND FUNCTION OF PROHIBITION

    FACTS

    Serrano leased a portion of a property of PNR to expire on December 31, 1996. She also bought a house formerly
    owned by certain Estrella at a public auction. Serrano allowed Longino to occupy a portion of the property without
    paying any rental on Longinos promise to help her secure a lease contract with the PNR over a property with an area
    of 146 square meters.

    Despite her agreement with Serrano, Longino filed an application with the PNR for a lease of the property occupied
    by her.

    When Serrano learned of the application she filed a handwritten Complaint against Longino, with the Commission on
    Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP), demanding that the PNR lease the property to her, and the eviction of
    Longino from the property on the ground that she had a preferential right to lease the property. Serrano alleged that
    the house she had purchased at public auction was located on the said PNR property, and that Longino occupied the
    property on her sufferance

    COSLAP rendered a Resolution in favor of Serrano and against Longino, holding, inter alia, that Serrano was the
    lawful possessor of the property and had a preferential right to lease the same.

    Longino filed a petition for prohibition against the COSLAP and Serrano with the Court of Appeals (CA). CA rendered
    judgment dismissing the petition. The CA also ruled that the Resolution of the COSLAP had already become final and
    executory. Hence, the appellate court concluded that the petition for prohibition was moot and academic.

    ISSUE Whether the petition for prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court was the proper remedy of the
    petitioner;

    HELD

    No. The petitioners petition for prohibition to enjoin the demolition of her structures on the property is DENIED for
    being moot and academic.

    The principal purpose for the writ of prohibition is to prevent an encroachment, excess, usurpation or
    assumption of jurisdiction on the part of an inferior court or quasi-judicial tribunal. It is granted when it is
    necessary for the orderly administration of justice, or prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in an
    oppressive or vindictive manner, or multiplicity of actions. 28 The writs of certiorari and prohibition, for that
    matter, are intended to annul or void proceedings in order to insure the fair and orderly administration of
    justice.29

    For a party to be entitled to a writ of prohibition, he must establish the following requisites: (a) it must be directed
    against a tribunal, corporation, board or person exercising functions, judicial or ministerial; (b) the tribunal,
    corporation, board or person has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion; and
    (c) there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. 30

    In the present case, the petition for prohibition filed with the CA by the petitioner could have been dismissed by the
    CA because the structures on the property had already been demolished. Manifestly, the petitioner was obliged to
    vacate the property and remove her structures thereon.

    You might also like