LEONARDO R. OCAMPO vs. LEONORA TIRONA, April 6, 2005FACTS: Ocampo alleged that he is the owner of a parcel of land. Tironais a lessee occupying a portion of the subject land. According toOcampo, upon acquisition of ownership of the subject premises, a formalwritten notice was given to Tirona. Tirona paid some monthly rentals due,however, Ocamporeceivedaletter fromCallejoLawOfficethat thesubject premises was declaredunder areafor priority development,Tironaisinvoingher right of first refusal andinconnectiontheretoTirona will temporarily stop paying her monthly rentals. Ocampo wrote aletter to Tirona demanding upon Tirona to pay the rentals and to vacatethe premises. Tirona failed and refused to heed to Ocampo!s demands.Ocampofiledacomplaint for unlawful detainer anddamagesagainstTirona before the "TC. "TC rendered a judgment in favor of Ocampoand againstTirona. The #TC A$$%#"&' %( TOTO the decision of the"TC. The CA )&T A)%'& the decision of the #TC. Thus, this petition.ISSUE: *+( Ocampo has a right to eject Tirona and demand payment ofrentals from her for the use and occupancy of the lot,RULING:The elements to be proved and resolved in unlawfuldetainercases arethefact of leaseande-pirationor violationof its terms.Ocampohastheright toeject Tironafromthesubject land. All theelements required for an unlawful detainer case to prosper are present. Ocampo notified Tirona that he purchased the subject land from Tirona!slessor. Tirona!scontinuedoccupationof thesubject landamountedtoacquiescence to Ocampo!s terms..owever, Tirona eventually refused topay rent to Ocampo, thus violating the lease.Ow!rs"ip #s # Iss$!The issue of ownership is not essential to an action for unlawfuldetainer.The fact of the lease and the e-piration of its term are the onlyelements of the action.The defense of ownership does not change thesummary nature of the action.I%!rpl!#&!rAn action for interpleader is proper when the lessee does not now theperson to whom to pay rentals due to conflicting claims on the property.Theactionof interpleader is aremedy whereby apersonwhohasproperty whether personal or real, in his possession, or an obligation torender wholly or partially, without claiming any right in both, or claims aninterest whichinwholeor inpart isnot disputedby theconflictingclaimants, comes to court and ass that the persons who claim the saidproperty or who consider themselves entitled to demand compliance withtheobligation, berequiredtolitigateamongthemselves, inorder todetermine finally who is entitled to one or the other thing.The remedy isafforded not to protect a person against a double liability but to protecthim against a double ve-ation in respect of one liability.*hen the courtorders that theclaimants litigateamongthemselves, therearises inreality a new action and the former are styled interpleaders, and in suchacasethepleadingwhichinitiatestheactioniscalledacomplaint ofinterpleader and not a cross/complaint.Thus, the instant petition for review is 0#A(T&'.R!p$'li(vsOr'!(i&) IIIArticle 12 of the $amily Code 3 'ivorceFACTS: On "ay 14, 5675, Cipriano Orbecido %%% married Lady "yros ".8illanueva at the 9nited Church of Christ in the :hilippines in Lam/an,O;amisCity.Their marriagewasblessedwithasonandadaughter,E dispositive portion.Theponentemayalso optto includean introductionora prologue aswellas an epilogue, especially in cases in which controversial or novelissues are involved.(o. Counselfor )G) has utterly failed to convince the Court that thereare enough factual and legal bases to resolve the paramount issue. Onthe other hand, the Office of the )olicitor 0eneral has sided withpetitioner insofar as there are no facts supporting the )G) :etition andtheassailed'ecision. The:etitionfailedtostatedirectlytheultimatefacts that it relied upon for its claim. 'uring the Oral Argument, counselfor)G)candidlyadmittedthat therewerenofactual allegationsinits:etition for 'eclaratory #elief. (either were there factual findings in theassailed 'ecision. At best, )G) merely ased the trial court to answer ahypothetical question. %n effect, it merely sought an advisory opinion, therenditionof whichwasbeyondthecourt!sconstitutional mandateandjurisdiction.%ndeed, theassailed'ecisionwasrenderedinclear violationof theConstitution, because it made no findings of facts and final disposition.A4S5 C4N vs. COMELEC, GR .00326, ,# 22,2000This isapetitionfor certiorariassailing CO"&L&C#esolution(o.67/5456. :etitioner assertsthat respondent actedwithgraveabuseofdiscretion amounting to a lac or e-cess of jurisdiction when it approvedthe issuance of a restraining order enjoining the petitioner or any othergroup from conducting e-it polls during the "ay 55 elections.The solicitorgeneralcontends thatthepetition is mootandacademic,because the "ay 55, 5667 election has already been held and done with.ISSUE: %s the Amoot and academicB principle a magical formula that canautomatically dissuade the courts in resolving a case,RULING:Theissueisnot totallymoot. *hiletheassailed#esolutionreferredspecifically to the "ay 55, 5667 election, its implications on the peopleHsfundamental freedomof e-pressiontranscendthepast election. Theholding of periodic elections is a basic feature of our democraticgovernment. Iy its very nature, e-it polling is tied up with elections. Toset aside the resolution of the issue now willonly postpone a tas thatcould well crop up again in future elections.%nany event, in)alongav. Cru; :aJo, theCourt hadoccasiontoreiteratethat it Calsohasthedutytoformulateguidingandcontrollingconstitutional principles, precepts, doctrines, or rules. %t has the symbolicfunction of educating bench and bar on the e-tent of protection given byconstitutional guarantees.CK )ince the fundamental freedoms of speechand of the press are being invoed here, we have resolved to settle, forthe guidance of posterity, whether they liewise protect the holding of e-itpolls and the dissemination of data derived therefrom.This Court, however, has ruled in the past that this proceduralrequirement may be glossed over to prevent a miscarriage of justice,7when the issue involves the principle of social justice or the protection oflabor,6whenthedecisionor resolutionsought tobeset asideisanullity,5= or when the need for relief is e-tremely urgent and certiorari isthe only adequate and speedy remedy available.The instant :etition assails a #esolution issued by the Comelec en bancon April 15, 5667, only twenty D1=E days beforetheelection itself.Iesides, the petitioner got hold of a copy thereof only on "ay 4, 5667.9nder the circumstances, there was hardly enough opportunity to movefor a reconsideration and to obtain a swift resolution in time or the "ay55, 5667 elections. "oreover, not only is time of the essence@ the :etitioninvolves transcendentalconstitutionalissues. 'irect resort to this Courtthrough a special civil action for certiorari is therefore justified.