Cabudol v. Estenzo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents Remigio Bacunal and Generosa Venceslao-Bacunal filed an action against petitioners Leonardo Cabudol, Pastor Cabudol, Daniel Cabudol, and Jesus Cabudol for the recovery of possession of a five-hectare portion of Lot No. 10266, claiming ownership thereof. Petitioners denied the allegations, asserting that they occupied Lot No. 10103, which they owned and possessed. Procedural History: The parties submitted a compromise agreement for the appointment of a surveyor to relocate the lots and a court commissioner to be present during the survey. The agreement stipulated that the party found to have trespassed would pay the surveyor's fees, and portions trespassed upon would be delivered to the rightful owner. The trial court rendered a decision based on this agreement. Subsequently, a survey report indicated petitioners were occupying 5.3686 hectares of respondents' Lot No. 10266. The lower court approved the report and ordered petitioners to pay the surveyor. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, arguing the relocation was made without notice to adjoining owners and that the commissioner failed to submit a report at a formal hearing. The motion was denied. Petitioners filed a notice of appeal and motion for extension, which was also denied on the ground that the order had become final and executory. Their subsequent motions for reconsideration were denied. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus to set aside the lower court's orders denying their appeal and to compel the lower court to give due course to their appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court erred in denying due course to the petitioners' appeal. Whether the orders of the lower court denying reconsideration and execution were valid.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari and mandamus as academic. No pronouncement as to costs was made.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of denying due course to the appeal: The Court noted that during the pendency of the petition before it, the petitioners filed a manifestation in the lower court, stating they had sold their Lot No. 10103, were transferring their residence, and were giving up their claim to the disputed portion of Lot No. 10266. They also wrote to their counsel terminating his services due to lack of interest in the case. Subsequently, petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the instant petition before the Supreme Court on the same grounds. Given these manifestations and actions, the Court found that the petitioners had signified their lack of interest in further prosecuting the case, rendering the petition academic. Therefore, the petition was dismissed without pronouncement as to costs. On the validity of the orders denying reconsideration and execution: The Court did not directly rule on the merits of the lower court's orders denying reconsideration and execution. Instead, by dismissing the petition as academic due to the petitioners' subsequent actions and withdrawal of interest, the underlying issues regarding the validity of those orders became moot. The dismissal was predicated on the petitioners' own conduct in abandoning their claim and seeking to withdraw the case, rather than on a substantive review of the lower court's procedural rulings.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari and mandamus will be dismissed as academic when the petitioners manifest their lack of interest in further prosecuting the case and move for its dismissal.