04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Proclamation 310 was valid and constitutional since the State, as ultimate owner of the subject lands, has the right to dispose of the same for some purpose other than CMU's use. There is nothing essentially wrong about a court holding on the one hand that it has no jurisdiction over a case, and on the other, based on an assumption that it has jurisdiction, deciding the case on its merits, both with the same results, which is the dismissal of the action. At any rate, the issue of the propriety of the RTC using two incompatible reasons for dismissing the action is academic. The CA from which the present petition was brought dismissed CMU's appeal on some technical ground. Two. Section 9(3) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980[6] vests in the CA appellate jurisdiction over the final judgments or orders of the RTCs and quasijudicial bodies. But where an appeal from the RTC raises purely questions of law, recourse should be by a petition for review on certiorari filed directly with this Court. The question in this case is whether or not CMU's appeal from the RTC's order of dismissal raises purely questions of law. As already stated, CMU raised two grounds for its appeal: 1) the RTC deprived it of its right to due process when it dismissed the action; and 2) Presidential Proclamation 310 was constitutional. Did these grounds raise factual issues that are proper for the CA to hear and adjudicate? Regarding the first reason, CMU's action was one for injunction against the implementation of Presidential Proclamation 310 that authorized the taking of lands from the university. The fact that the President issued this proclamation in Manila and that it was being enforced in Malaybalay City where the lands were located were facts that were not in issue. These were alleged in the complaint and presumed to be true by the motion to dismiss. Consequently, the CMU's remedy for assailing the correctness of the dismissal, involving as it did a pure question of law, indeed lies with this Court. As to the second reason, the CMU claimed that the Malaybalay RTC deprived it of its right to due process when it dismissed the case based on the ground that Presidential Proclamation 310, which it challenged, was constitutional. CMU points out that the issue of the constitutionality of the proclamation had not yet been properly raised and heard. NCIP, et al had not yet filed an answer to join issue with CMU on that score. What NCIP, et al filed was merely a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Malaybalay RTC over the injunction case. Whether the RTC in fact prematurely decided the constitutionality of the proclamation, resulting in the denial of CMU's right to be heard on the same, is a factual issue that was proper for the CA Mindanao Station to hear and ascertain from the parties. Consequently, the CA erred in dismissing the action on the ground that it raised pure questions of law. Three. Since the main issue of the constitutionality of Presidential Proclamation 310 has been raised and amply argued before this Court, it would serve no useful purpose to have the case remanded to the CA Mindanao Station or to the Malaybalay RTC for further proceedings. Ultimately, the issue of constitutionality of the Proclamation in question will come to this Court however the courts below decide it. Consequently, the Court should, to avoid delay and multiplicity of suits, now resolve the same. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/54430 3/6