MARGARITO J. LOFRANCO, PETITIONER, VS. JESUS JIMENEZ, SR., RESPONDENT.

This appeal by certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R.
No. L-36010 was taken on May
29, 1967.  Finding, upon a
preliminary consideration of the issues raised in the petition, that the same
were substantial and meritorious, We gave due course
to the appeal on June 22 of the same year, and We required the respondent to
answer the petition, in the form of a brief, within fifteen days from
notice.  His counsel received notice
thereof on July 1 of the same year.  On the
15th of said month, however, said counsel filed a motion for a ten-day extension
of the period within which to file respondent’s brief,
which motion We grated on the 24th of the same month.  Again, on October 10, 1967, counsel for
respondent filed a petition for additional time to file his brief or to set the
case for oral argument, and on the 9th of the following month We issued a
resolution considering the case submitted for decision, without respondent’s
brief, in view of his failure to file the same within the period granted him
for the purpose.

On August 17, 1967
petitioner filed a MANIFESTATION AND MOTION advising the court that respondent
Jesus Jimenez, Sr. had died, and prayed that We
consider for action the allegations made in paragraphs 4 and 5 of said
Manifestation which read as follows:

“4.  That since Petitioner is the incumbent
municipal mayor (and the protestee), the Petitioner
believes:

‘First.  That the
present petition survives the death of the Respondent in view of the decisions
of the Court of First instance of Bohol and the Court
of Appeals in favor of Respondent-Protestant;

‘Second.  That since
the decision of the Court of Appeals, subject of the present petition, and of
the Court of First Instance of Bohol, are not yet
final, the death of the Protestant (Respondent herein) makes such decisions functus officio;’

“5.  That the contingent
right of the Protestant Jesus Jimenez, Sr. (Respondent) to hold the contested
position is strictly personal and cannot be transmitted to his heirs; that the
decision of the Court of Appeals does not impose any pecuniary liability
against Protestee-Petitioner payable to
Protestant-Respondent; nor does the decision of the Court of First Instance so
provide.”

In view of petitioner’s pleading mentioned in the preceding
paragraph, on October 10, 1967
We issued a resolution requiring counsel for
respondent to answer the same within five days from notice.  It was only on October 19, 1967 that said
counsel filed a pleading entitled ANSWER AND OPPOSITION TO MANIFESTATION AND
MOTION, claiming that the present appeal has not become moot for the reason
that it involved firstly, petitioner’s right to continue holding the position
of Mayor of Inabanga, Bohol,
and secondly, the right of respondent (already deceased) to recover costs,
including reimbursement of expenses incurred in connection with the election
protest, attorney’s fees, and damages suffered by virtue of the deprivation of
his right to the office of Mayor of Inabanga.

As a result of the abovementioned opposition, we denied the
motion to dismiss the appeal on November
7, 1967.

It is obvious, however, not only that respondent Jimenez is
already dead but that the term for the contested office of Mayor of Inabanga, Bohol, has already
expired, the present election protest having arisen out of the general
elections held in November 1963.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the present appeal is hereby
dismissed, without costs.

Concepcion,
C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Bengzon,
J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.