LEONARDA T. AVEDANA, PURIFICACION T. TIMBANG, EMILIANA T. BAUTISTA AND EVANGELINE BAUTISTA-ORTIZ, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. JUDGE MANUEL P. DUMATOL, IN HIS CA…

This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking the
reversal of: (a) the February 8, 1988
decision of the Court of Appeals in Civil Case No. CA-G.R. SP No. 13739
entitled “Leonarda T. Avedana, et al. v. Hon. Judge Manuel P. Dumatol, et
al. affirming the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch
XXIX, Pasay City dated May 26, 1973 in Civil Case No. 3782-P entitled
“Manolito N. Bautista v. Leonarda Avedana, et al.” ejecting
defendants-petitioners and (b) the resolution dated April 22, 1988 denying
petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.

The undisputed facts of the case are as follows:

Manuel Bautista (deceased) father of private respondent Manolito
Bautista, was the owner of a residential lot located at 316 G-Villanueva St. Pasay City
containing an area of 455 sq. meters covered by T.C.T. No. T-2210 issued in his
name. Said lot was a separate
property of Manuel Bautista having inherited the same from his father,
Mariano. (Rollo, pp.12-13)

A portion of the above-mentioned 455 sq. meters, measuring 125
sq. meters, was leased for an indefinite period by Manuel Bautista to
petitioners Leonarda Avedana and Purificacion T. Timbang, on the lot a two storey semi-concrete house was built
by the lessees. (Rollo, p. 13)

Manuel Bautista married twice. In his first marriage he had eight (8) children, one of them is the
private respondent Manolito Bautista; in the second marriage he begot only one
child, Evangeline, a co-petitioner. (Rollo,
p. 13)

On December 22, 1966, the herein private respondent together with
his brother and sisters executed a deed of extra-judicial partition of the
estate of their mother, Juliana Nojadera, but such deed referred not to the
estate of Juliana but that of the father, Manuel Bautista, for in truth the
mother did not have any estate of her own. (Rollo, p. 13).

Without the knowledge of the father the deed of extra-­judicial
partition was registered by the Register of Deeds of Pasay and T.C.T. No. 2210
was cancelled in lieu of T.C.T. No. T?14182 in the names of his eight
children. (Rollo, pp. 13-14)

On September 27, 1967, said children executed a deed of absolute sale transferring
said parcel of land to their brother Manolito Bautista by virtue of which T.C.T. No.
T-14182 was cancelled and in lieu thereof T.C.T. No. T-14186 was issued in the
name of Manolito alone. (Rollo, p. 13)

On August 27, 1969, Manolito sold back the above-mentioned land in
favor of his sisters, and upon registration of the sale T.C.T. Nos. T-15665,
T-15666, T-15667, T-15668, T-15669, T-15670 and T-15671 were issued. (Rollo, p. 13)

On April 28, 1972, private respondent Manolito Bautista claiming
now to be the owner of the property in question filed a complaint in the Court
of First Instance of Pasay, Civil Case No. 3782-P ejecting petitioners from the
premises leased by them from Manuel Bautista. (Rollo, Annex “A” pp.
35-37)

On May 26, 1973, Judge Arsenio Alcantara rendered a decision the
dispositive part which reads as follow:

a)     
declaring plaintiff as
the lawful owner of lot No. 2090-C-2-A, located at G. Villanueva St.
Pasay City;

b)     
ordering defendants to turn over the possession of litigated
land to plaintiff;

c)     
ordering defendants to demolish the old house erected thereon,
and to vacate the premises without further delay;

d)     
ordering defendants to pay the amount of P1,340.00 as accrued
rentals since October, 1967 computed at P20.00 a month with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum
counted from October, 1967 up to the termination of this case;

e)     
ordering defendant to pay P500.00 as attorney’s fees and to
pay the costs.” (Rollo, Annex “B” pp. 39-45).

Dissatisfied with the decision, the petitioners appealed to the
Court of Appeals, which rendered a decision on February 1, 1977, modifying the
judgment of the trial court, as follows:

“WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby modified as
follows:

(1)  
declaring the plaintiff as the lawful owner of the property in
question and ordering defendants to vacate the premises and to turn over the
possession of the property to plaintiff, subject to the provisions of Article
1678 of the Civil Code which the lower court shall determine in appropriate
proceedings;

(2)  
ordering defendants to pay plaintiff the rentals for the
occupancy of the premises at the rate of P20.00 a month from February, 1970 up
to the time the premises are turned over to the plaintiff with 6% (interest)
per annum;

(3)  
ordering defendants to pay plaintiff P500.00 attorney’s fees
and the costs of suit.” (Rollo, Annex “C” pp. 46-57)

On November 11, 1977, petitioners Avedana and Timbang filed a
complaint with the Court of First Instance of Rizal, docketed as Civil
Case No. 5961-P, seeking to annul
the judgment rendered by the Court of
First Instance of Rizal in Civil Case No. 3782-P. Said complaint having been dismissed, the petitioners appealed
the order of dismissal to the Court of Appeals which certified the case to the
Supreme Court on the ground that the appeal involved purely questions of
law. (Rollo, Decision, p. 152)

On April 8, 1986, the Supreme Court rendered a decision,
sustaining the order of the lower court’s dismissal of the petitioners’
complaint. (Rollo, Annex “D”
pp. 58-62)

On the basis of the foregoing developments, the herein private
respondent Manolito Bautista sought to execute the decision of the lower court as early as November
11, 1975 but the same was not implemented. The lower court itself has held in abeyance the ejectment of the herein
petitioners precisely because of the nagging issue of ownership of the property
in question which is now the subject of the case entitled “Emiliana
Bautista, et al. v. Hon. Justice Carolina C. Grino-Aquino.” G.R. No.
L-19959 which was then still pending before this Court. (Rollo, pp. 85-86, Annex “T” pp.
113-124)

Private respondent Manolito Bautista on July 16, 1987 tried to
revive his motion for execution and for writ of demolition of the house erected
by petitioners on the leased premises. On the same date, the trial court granted the motion and a writ of
execution was issued on July 20, 1987. On July 27, 1987 petitioners filed a motion to quash the writ of execution and
opposition to motion for demolition. (Rollo, Annex “E” pp. 63-­64, Annex “F” pp. 65-66)

On September 30, 1987, respondent Judge Manuel Dumatol issued an
order denying petitioners’ motion to quash writ of execution and granted the
motion for demolition. On October 1,
1987, petitioners moved for reconsideration of the aforesaid order but the same
was denied in the order dated January 4, 1988 and a writ of demolition was
issued on January 6, 1988. (Rollo,
Annex “G” pp. 67-68; Annex “H” pp. 69-70, Annex
“J” p. 71).

On January 7, 1988, petitioners filed a motion to set aside the order of
January 4, 1988 and the writ of demolition dated January 6, 1988. (Rollo, Annex “K” pp. 72-73)

Meanwhile, on November 12, 1987, petitioners-intervenors Emiliana
Bautista and Evangeline Bautista-Ortiz filed their motion for intervention in
Civil Case No. 3782-P, which was denied by respondent Judge Manuel Dumatol in
his order dated November 19, 1987. (Rollo, Annex “L” pp. 74-75; Annex “M” p. 76)

On December 4, 1987, said petitioners-intervenors filed their
motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid order. In the order of January 21, 1988, the respondent judge denied
petitioners-intervenors’ motion for reconsideration; the motion of petitioners
Avedana and Timbang to set aside
the order dated January 4, 1988 and the writ of demolition dated January 6,
1988. (Rollo, Annex “N” pp.
77-80; Annex “O” p. 81)

On January 27, 1988, the petitioners filed a petition
for certiorari, prohibition and injunction in the Court of Appeals. (Rollo, Annex “P” pp. 82-106)

And on February 8, 1988 a decision was issued by the Court of
Appeals, the dispositive part thereof is as follows:

“WHEREFORE, the petition being insufficient in substance it is
denied due course and is dismissed.”

SO ORDERED. (Rollo,
Decision, p. 150?157)

A motion for reconsideration was filed on March 2, 1988 on the
said decision and on April 22,
1988 a resolution was issued denying such motion for reconsideration. (Rollo, Res. pp. 159-160; Annex “O” pp.
107-110)

Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

In the resolution dated June 27, 1988 the Court required the respondents
to comment thereon. (Rollo, petition,
pp. 7-32; Res. p. 146)

Respondents having failed to comment within the required period,
petitioners filed a motion to consider the case submitted for decision, which
motion was noted by this Court in its resolution dated October 12, 1988. (Rollo, pp. 162-163; Res. p. 146)

On November 16, 1988
a manifestation
and motion to consider respondent to have waived the right to comment on the
petition and reiterating the prayer to consider the case submitted for decision
was filed by the petitioners. (Rollo,
pp. 165-167) In the resolution
of January 9, 1989 said motion and manifestation were noted and granted. (Rollo, pp. 165-167; Res. 168)

In the resolution of March 8, 1989 the Court noted the change of
address of the private respondent lawyer and required said counsel to SHOW
CAUSE for failure to comment on the resolution dated June 27, 1988 and to comply to said
resolution. (Rollo, p. 170)

A manifestation and compliance was filed on April 6, 1989 by the
counsel of the private respondent explaining among others that insofar as
petitioners Leonarda Avedana and Purificacion Timbang are concerned, their
prayer for a restraining order has become moot and academic because their house
was already demolished in the later part of 1988 and they likewise vacated the
premises. On the issue raised by
petitioners Emiliana Bautista and her daughter Evangeline the same was already
resolved by this Court in G.R. No. 79958. (Rollo, pp. 171-172)

It appearing that the issues raised in the petition have already
been resolved, it is evident that
the same have become
moot and academic.

Under similar circumstances this
Court held that a case has become moot and academic and should be
dismissed where the tenant has already vacated the premises and possession
thereof has already been delivered to the owner. (Tinio v. Castro, 136 SCRA 658, 1985) Similarly, a petition to
stop the demolition of property is rendered moot and academic by the demolition
of the house and shanties. (Santiago v.
Castro, 128 SCRA 545, 1984) or where the order of demolition was already
implemented. (Nakpil v. Aragon, 95 SCRA
85, 1980)

Finally, a case is dismissed as moot and academic where a related case
had resolved all the varied issues raised between the parties. (GSIS v. CA, 149 SCRA 379, 1987)

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the instant petition is
dismissed for having become moot
and academic.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Padilla, Sarmiento, and Regalado, JJ., concur.