11/7/21, 9:21 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 027

166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Chamber of Filipino Retailers, Inc. vs. Villegas

No. L-29864. February 28, 1969.

CHAMBER OF FILIPINO RETAILERS, INC., NATIONAL

MARKET VENDORS ASSOCIATION, INC., AMBROSIO
ILAO, CRISPIN

_______________

4”ART. 1116. Prescription already running before the effectivity of this

Code shall be governed by laws previously in force, but if since the time
this Code took effect the entire period herein required for prescription
should elapse, -the present Code shall be applicable even though by the
former laws a longer period might be required.”
5”ART. 1137. Ownership and other real rights over immovables also
prescribe through uninterrupted adverse possession thereof for thirty
years, without need of title or of good faith.”
6”ART. 1141. Real actions over immovables prescribe after thirty years.
This provision is without prejudice to what is established for the
acquisition of ownership and other real rights by prescription.”

167

VOL. 27, FEBRUARY 28, 1969 167

Chamber of Filipino Retailers, Inc. vs. Villegas

DE GUZMAN, JOSE J. LAPID, and FELICISIMO LAS,

petitioners, vs. HON. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, as City
Mayor of Manila, The CITY TREASURER and The CITY
OF MANILA, respondents.

Motion for reconsideration; Motion for reconsideration may be

denied by the Supreme Court when relief sought could be secured
in the lower court.—The motion for reconsideration must be
denied, for the reason that the relief sought by herein petitioners
could be properly secured from the lower court in accordance with
the provisions of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. As a matter of fact,
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017cf80228039700bcae000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/3
11/7/21, 9:21 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 027

petitioner’s motion for reconsideration expressly states that on

November 21, 1968 they filed in the latter case a motion to
reinstate the restraining order hereinbefore mentioned or to issue
a writ of preliminary injunction pending appeal, which motion,
however, was denied by the Supreme Court on the 26th of ,the
same month and year, It would appear, therefore, that the
present action was filed as an attempt to secure from the
Supreme Court the same relief that had already denied in G.R.
No. L-29819.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION of Supreme Court

resolution.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

RESOLUTION

DIZON, J.:

Before Us is a motion for the reconsideration of our

resolution of December 3, 1968 dismissing the present
action for prohibition “for lack of merit; appeal in due time
is the remedy”.
It appears that on August 14, 1968 petitioners filed Civil
Case No. 73902 against Antonio J. Villegas, et al. in the
Court of First Instance of Manila to question the validity of
Ordinance No. 6696—later superseded by Ordinance No.
6767—increasing the rental fees of stalls in public markets
in said city. A restraining order was issued by said court
but the same was lifted on November 3, 1968 when, after
hearing the parties, the court rendered judgment
dismissing the case and declaring the questioned ordi-

168

168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Chamber of Filipino Retailers, Inc. vs. Villegas

nance valid. On November 16, 1968 the therein petition-ers

perfected their appeal to this Court (G. R. No. L-29819).
Petitioners now allege that upon the lifting of the
restraining order mentioned heretofore, the respondents in
the case—who are the same respondents in the present—
immediately sought to enforce the provisions of Ordinance
No. 6767 by making demands for the payment of the back
differentials in market rates together with the rentals at
the new rates, with the threat that petitioners would be
ejected summarily from their respective stalls if they
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017cf80228039700bcae000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/3
11/7/21, 9:21 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 027

refused or failed to pay the rentals and back charges

demanded. After receiving such demand petitioners filed
the present action for prohibition to restrain collection of
rentals and possible ejectment.
Upon the above facts We reiterate our resolution
dismissing the present action f or prohibition and, as a
consequence, We deny the motion for reconsideration
mentioned heretofore, for the reason that the relief sought
by herein petitioners could be properly secured from the
lower court in accordance with the provisions of Rule 41 of
the Rules of Court, or from this Court in the appealed case
—G.R. L-29864. As a matter of fact, petitioners’ motion for
reconsideration expressly states that on November 21, 1968
they filed in the latter case a motion to reinstate the
restraining order herein before mentioned or to issue a writ
of preliminary injunction pending appeal, which motion,
however, was denied by this Court on the 26th of the same
month and year. It would appear, therefore, that the
present action was filed as an attempt to secure from this
court the same relief that we had already denied to the
same parties in G.R. No. L-29819.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the motion for
reconsideration filed by petitioners on December 5, 1968 is
hereby denied.

          Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal,

Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Fernando, Capistrano,
Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concur.

Motion for reconsideration denied.

169

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017cf80228039700bcae000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/3