Victorio v. Volz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Felisa R. de Victorio filed an action for unlawful detainer against Jacob Volz for an accesoria on Antipolo Street. The municipal court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, and the Court of First Instance affirmed this judgment. Procedural History: The action was commenced in the municipal court on December 22, 1943, and the Court of First Instance decision was rendered on May 20, 1944. The appellant (defendant) filed an appeal based on a reconstituted record. However, the evidence was not submitted, and the appellant did not provide information on its whereabouts, presumably destroyed during the war. The Petition: The plaintiff, instead of pursuing the reconstitution of the record of the first case, filed a new action after liberation. The plaintiff in the new action was Filipina Victorio de Virata, the daughter of the original plaintiff, Felisa R. de Victorio. The defendant was declared in default in this second action on August 15, 1945, and a judgment was rendered by the Court of First Instance which subsequently became final. The defendant had also left the premises. The present appeal concerns the first case.
Issue(s)
Whether the present appeal has become moot and academic. Whether the counterclaim for damages could be passed upon in the present appeal.
Ruling
The appeal is dismissed without costs, subject to the reservation regarding the counterclaim for damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On the mootness of the appeal: The Court held that the present appeal had ceased to have any reason for being. The filing of a second action for unlawful detainer, which resulted in a default judgment that had become final and executory, rendered the appeal in the first case moot. The defendant had already left the premises, and any defenses available in the first case could have or should have been raised in the second case. The judgment in the second case was no longer subject to direct attack, and all defenses concerning the right to possession were merged in that judgment. On the counterclaim for damages: The Court stated that the counterclaim for damages allegedly caused by the filing of the first suit could not be passed upon in the present appeal. This was due to the absence of the evidence, which was necessary for its determination. The Court noted that if the recital of facts in the decision of the first case were to be relied upon, the dismissal of the counterclaim would have been proper. The Court left the defendant's right to pursue this claim in a separate suit open.
Main Doctrine
An appeal from a judgment in an unlawful detainer case becomes moot and academic when a subsequent action between the same parties concerning the same property has been filed, resulting in a default judgment that has become final and executory, especially when the defendant has already vacated the premises.