Molo-Peckson v. Bautista
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Emiliana Molo-Peckson and Pilar Perez-Nable, as foster children of the deceased spouses Mariano and Juana Molo, received a substantial portion of the Molo estate, including ten parcels of land in Pasay City. This donation was made inter vivos with the condition that the donees sell these lots for P10.00 each to Resurreccion and Juana de Leon. Subsequently, the donees mortgaged these properties without the consent of the De Leons, who had deposited the stipulated purchase price. The De Leons initiated a civil case to compel the conveyance of the lots or payment of their market value. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Rizal ruled in favor of the De Leons, ordering the donees to clear the encumbrances and convey the property or pay its assessed value, along with attorney's fees and an accounting of fruits. This decision was affirmed on appeal by the Supreme Court, with a modification regarding the commencement date for the accounting. After the decision became final, a writ of execution was issued. The donees partially complied by paying attorney's fees and interest, and conveying their share of the property. However, they failed to fully clear the encumbrances and convey the remaining share. This led to a contempt motion and an order from the lower court appointing the Acting Clerk of Court to take further action, which prompted the present certiorari action. The Petition: Petitioners, Emiliana Molo-Peckson, et al., filed an original action for certiorari with preliminary injunction, seeking to annul an order of the Court of First Instance of Rizal. They argued that the order compelling them to clear encumbrances and convey the property was premature, as they had the right to opt to pay the appraised value of the lots. They also raised issues regarding the premature demand for accounting and the imposition of interest on attorney's fees. The Supreme Court, however, noted that subsequent events, including the voluntary fulfillment of the writ of execution by the petitioners, rendered the issues moot and academic, leading to the dismissal of the case.
Issue(s)
Whether the writ of execution issued by the lower court was premature and improperly enforced. Whether the petitioners were entitled to choose to pay the appraised value of the lots instead of conveying them, despite the existing encumbrances. Whether the lower court gravely abused its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration and ordering the Clerk of Court to levy on other properties to satisfy the judgment.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the case, holding that the issues had become moot and academic. The Court noted that the respondents had filed a motion to dismiss based on the petitioners' voluntary compliance with the writ of execution, specifically by freeing the lots from liens and encumbrances and conveying their share. Since the petitioners did not object to the dismissal, the Court found no reason to proceed further.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found that the issues presented in the certiorari petition had become moot and academic. This was due to the respondents' assertion, supported by their motion to dismiss, that the petitioners had voluntarily complied with the writ of execution. Specifically, the petitioners had allegedly freed the lots from liens and encumbrances and conveyed their undivided share. As the petitioners did not interpose any objection to the dismissal of the case on these grounds, the Court deemed the matter resolved. On Issue 2: The Court implicitly acknowledged the petitioners' obligation to comply with the original judgment, which included freeing the lands from encumbrances and executing a deed of sale. The fact that the case was dismissed due to subsequent compliance suggests that the petitioners' prior arguments about prematurity or the right to pay appraised value were either resolved by their actions or rendered moot by the subsequent events. The Court's dismissal based on mootness indicates that the underlying dispute regarding compliance with the judgment was, in effect, settled by the parties' actions. On Issue 3: The dismissal of the case on the ground of mootness rendered the question of grave abuse of discretion moot. The Court's action of dismissing the petition without special pronouncement as to costs signifies that it found no compelling reason to delve into the merits of the alleged grave abuse of discretion, given the supervening events that resolved the core dispute. The Court's deference to the respondents' motion and the lack of objection from the petitioners led to the conclusion that the controversy was no longer justiciable.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, as modified, which ordered the defendants (petitioners herein) to free ten parcels of land from existing mortgage liens and thereafter execute a deed of absolute sale in favor of the plaintiffs (respondents herein) for a nominal consideration. The Court reiterated that in case of refusal or failure to comply, the defendants would be ordered to pay the assessed value of the lands, and further emphasized the lower court's authority to appoint the Acting Clerk of Court to execute the deed of sale and to levy on other properties of the defendants to satisfy the judgment, including the removal of encumbrances.