MARIO F. OUANO AND LETICIA O. ARNAIZ, PETITIONERS VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Anunciacion P. Vda. de Ouano, widow of Damian M. Ouano,
was the duly appointed administratrix of the Intestate
Estate of her husband by the CFI of Cebu. (Sp. proc.
No. 2143-R) On July 31, 1961, she presented a Petition for authority to sell her
one fourth (1/4) pro indiviso share in four
parcels of land, described therein on August 18, 1961, the Court granted the
petition and she was “authorized to execute the necessary deed of sale covering
one-half undivided share belonging to this estate in the properties described in
the petition for the sum of P155,000.00 in favor of
Atty. Antonio M. Cui.” Cui was required to deposit the amount. Under date of
August 28, 1961, the administratrix filed a motion
praying that the offer of Cui be rejected, it appearing that in making the
deposit of P155,000.00, Cui claimed that said amount was in payment of the four
(4) parcels, and not just for the one-half (1/2), as ordered by the Court. An
opposition to the motion was interposed by Cui. On September 8, 1961 the lower
Court sustained the stand of Cui, stating that the bid offered by him (Cui) was
understood to be for the four parcels of land. In another Order, of the same
date, the court also denied the motion of the administratrix and required her, together with the co-owner
of the property, Jovita O. Vda. de Martinez, who appeared
before the Court, to execute the necessary deed of sale for the four (4) parcels
of land for P155,000.00.

Claiming that the P155,000.00
offer of Cui was accepted by the lower court, without benefit of public bidding,
and that there is in fact an offer by the Corominas,
Richards & Co., to purchase the same property for P270,000.00, the
petitioners herein, Mario B. Ouano and Leticia O.
Arnaiz, as heirs of Damian Ouano, “presented with the trial court an “Urgent Motion for
Reconsideration and/ or Motion to Set Aside Court’s Orders dated August 18 and
September 8, 1961.” Movants therein (now petitioners)
were allowed to adduce evidence in support of their Urgent Motion, both oral and
documentary. The lower court denied the motion for reconsideration, in an
order dated April 3, 1962. On April 11, 1962, petitioners filed a Notice of
Appeal against the orders dated August 18, September 8, 1961, and April 3, 1962.
The Appeal Bond and Record on Appeal were also presented, within the reglementary period. In an Order of May 3, 1962, the lower
court rejected the appeal, on the ground that petitioners “have no legal standing to meddle and interfere with the
administration” of the state, there being a duly appointed administratrix “who is the only party legally clothed with
authority to represent it” and also for the reason that the administratrix, having already appealed the orders directing
the sale of the property to Antonio Ma. Cui, the appeal of petitioners
involving: the same subject-matter, would clearly be a
superfluity.

Petitioners, claiming that the
reasons advanced by the lower court in rejecting their appeal, were not valid,
brought the matter to the Court of Appeals on a petition for “Mandamus”, praying
that the lower court be compelled to give duo course to said appeal. After
proper proceedings, the Court of Appeals rendered judgment, dismissing the
petition, sustaining the lower court in its ruling that petitioners herein have
no legal standing in the case.

During the pendency of this appeal in this Court, however, counsel for
the petitioners, on May 12, 1964, submitted a “Motion” praying for the dismissal
of the petition. Attached to said petition is an Order of the respondent Judge,
dated March 25, 1964, the contents of which read:

“In her motion, dated March 19,
1964, the administratrix that she be allowed to
withdraw the petition for authority to soil, dated July 24, 1961, the previous
resolutions of which by this Court, having been reversed on appeal by the Court
of Appeals.

“In view whereof, the Court
hereby declares the aforesaid petition for authority to sell filed by the administratrix
withdrawn.”

Considering that the present case
is an incident to the Petition filed by the said administratrix, on July 24, 1961, for authority to sell the
interest of the estate over the 4 parcels of land, heretofore mentioned, with
the withdrawal of Paid petition for authority to sell, the issues herein
involved have become moot and academic. Appeal is dismissed, without
pronouncement to costs.

Benzon, C. J., Bautista Angelo, Reyes,
J. B. L. Barrera, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.
P. and Zaldivar, JJ.,
concur.