Civpro Full Wo Digest 
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 153690 February 15, 2011
DAVID LU, Petitioner, vs. PATERNO LU YM, SR., PATERNO LU YM, JR., VICTOR LU YM, JOHN LU YM, KELLY LU YM, and LUDO & LUYM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondents. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. No. 157381
PATERNO LU YM, SR., PATERNO LU YM, JR., VICTOR LU YM, JOHN LU YM, KELLY LU YM, and LUDO & LUYM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioners, vs. DAVID LU, Respondent. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. No. 170889
JOHN LU YM and LUDO & LUYM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS OF CEBU CITY (FORMER TWENTIETH DIVISION), DAVID LU, ROSA GO, SILVANO LUDO & CL CORPORATION, Respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
By Decision of August 26, 2008, the Court1 unanimously disposed of the three present petitions as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petitions in G.R. Nos. 153690 and 157381 are DENIED for being moot and academic; while the petition in G.R. No. 170889 is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Consequently, the Status Quo Order dated January 23, 2006 is hereby LIFTED.
The Court of Appeals is DIRECTED to proceed with CA-G.R. CV No. 81163 and to resolve the same with dispatch.
SO ORDERED[,]2 which Decision was, on motion for reconsideration, the Court voting 4-1,3 reversed by Resolution of August 4, 2009, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by John Lu Ym and Ludo & LuYm Development Corporation is GRANTED. The Decision of this Court dated August 26, 2008 is RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE. The Complaint in SRC Case No. 021-CEB, now on appeal with the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 81163, is DISMISSED.
All interlocutory matters challenged in these consolidated petitions are DENIED for being moot and academic.
SO ORDERED.4
David Lu’s Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Refer Resolution to the Court En
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 153690 February 15, 2011
DAVID LU, Petitioner, vs. PATERNO LU YM, SR., PATERNO LU YM, JR., VICTOR LU YM, JOHN LU YM, KELLY LU YM, and LUDO & LUYM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondents. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. No. 157381
PATERNO LU YM, SR., PATERNO LU YM, JR., VICTOR LU YM, JOHN LU YM, KELLY LU YM, and LUDO & LUYM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioners, vs. DAVID LU, Respondent. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. No. 170889
JOHN LU YM and LUDO & LUYM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS OF CEBU CITY (FORMER TWENTIETH DIVISION), DAVID LU, ROSA GO, SILVANO LUDO & CL CORPORATION, Respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
By Decision of August 26, 2008, the Court1 unanimously disposed of the three present petitions as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petitions in G.R. Nos. 153690 and 157381 are DENIED for being moot and academic; while the petition in G.R. No. 170889 is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Consequently, the Status Quo Order dated January 23, 2006 is hereby LIFTED.
The Court of Appeals is DIRECTED to proceed with CA-G.R. CV No. 81163 and to resolve the same with dispatch.
SO ORDERED[,]2 which Decision was, on motion for reconsideration, the Court voting 4-1,3 reversed by Resolution of August 4, 2009, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by John Lu Ym and Ludo & LuYm Development Corporation is GRANTED. The Decision of this Court dated August 26, 2008 is RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE. The Complaint in SRC Case No. 021-CEB, now on appeal with the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 81163, is DISMISSED.
All interlocutory matters challenged in these consolidated petitions are DENIED for being moot and academic.
SO ORDERED.4
David Lu’s Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Refer Resolution to the Court En
Citations: For our resolution is the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals dated April 20, 2001 in CA-G.R. SP No. 48001. On July 21, 1997, the MeTC rendered its Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, the Court renders judgment: In its Decision dated April 20, 2001, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the RTC Decision, thus: WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED Petitioners contend that since the issue of ownership of the property in dispute is inextricably linked with the issue of possession, the MeTC has no jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 15340. Verily, we hold that the Court of Appeals did not err in holding that the MeTC of Mandaluyong City has jurisdiction to hear and decide Civil Case No. 15340, notwithstanding the issue of ownership raised by petitioners in their answer. WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 20, 2001 in CA-G.R. SP No. 48001 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.