TITLE: MANALANG vs.

RICKARDS (Tenant Ejectment Case) 1958

FACTS: Bernardo Manalang, Vicente de Leon and Salvador de Leon are the petitioners
and Elvira Tuason de Rickards is the respondent in this civil case.

On January 1, 1954, the City of Manila increased the assessment of the properties
being rented by Manalang and group –Rickards thus increased the rentals of the
lots.

Manalang and group insisted to pay the former rent.

On April 1954, Rickards filed ejectment cases against the 3 tenants in the
Municipal Court of Manila.

Manalang and others filed separate motions to dismiss invoking the provisions of
RA 1162. It was heard on July 14, 1954.

Municipal Court of Manila denied the motions to dismiss and suspends the
proceedings to 2 years oruntil further order from the court.

On 1955, Municipal Judge issued an order to set the case for hearing.

Manalang and group tried to secure a reconsideration of the hearing order but it
was denied.

They filed then a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the CFI against
Rickards – since the Manalang group did not want the case to be heard

Rickards in defense argued that the order of July 14, 1954 –which ordered the
case to suspended for 2 years or until further notice, is merely an interlocutory
order thus it cannot be reviewed by a petition for certiorari. They argue that the
case must be heard.

In 1956, the CFI dismissed Manalangs petition since they agreed that the order of
the lower court was interlocutory in nature -the case must be heard.

Again, Manalang group appealed to the CA but the CA decided to pass the case to
the Supreme Court since the case involves a question purely of law.

Actions for ejectment were filed before the enactment of RA1162. General
principle of Laws can only be enforced prospectively. Municipal Judge saw it fit
to suspend the proceedings with the expectation that the question of the
constitutionality of RA1162 will be discussed.
ISSUE: The Main issue is whether the order of the inferior court on July 14, 1954 is
interlocutory of not; and if the lower court made a mistake in dismissing the petition for
certiorari and prohibition.

HELD: YES. The July 14, 1954 order was interlocutory since the dispositive portion of
the order did not provide a definite resolution to the case, instead it suspended the hearing
of the case. But, the Supreme Court affirms the order of the lower court dismissing the
appellants petition for certiorari and prohibition. Also, the lower court is given the power
to reopen the trial to finally determine the rights of the parties involved –to give
resolution to the case.