Generoso v. Vamenta, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Court of Appeals allowed Basilisa Generoso to redeem a one-sixth pro indiviso share in Lot No. 6396 for P4,000 from Teodora A. Nicolas Lagasca within thirty days from the finality of the judgment. This Court dismissed Lagasca's petition for review, and the decision became final and executory on April 4, 1976. Basilisa had initially deposited the redemption price in 1970, but her lawyer withdrew it in 1975 for personal use while the case was pending in the Court of Appeals. Basilisa made a second deposit of P4,000 on November 29, 1976, to effect the redemption. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) judge disallowed the second redemption deposit, ruling that it should have been made on or before May 4, 1976, the last day of the thirty-day period. This disallowance was assailed in the instant certiorari petition. The Petition: Petitioners assailed the order of Judge Vamenta disallowing the redemption.
Issue(s)
Whether the redemption made on November 29, 1976, was valid. Whether the case should be dismissed for being moot and academic.
Ruling
The motion to dismiss is granted, and the case is dismissed for having become moot and academic. No costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the redemption: The Court of Appeals' decision became final and executory on April 4, 1976. The thirty-day period for redemption would have expired on May 4, 1976. The second deposit made on November 29, 1976, was therefore made beyond the reglementary period prescribed by the Court of Appeals' decision. The disallowance of this late redemption by Judge Vamenta was thus proper. On the dismissal of the case for mootness: The petitioners, Basilisa Generoso and Narciso Merced, sold their disputed one-sixth interest in the property on November 28, 1977, to Natividad Delgado. This sale occurred while the certiorari petition was pending before this Court. Consequently, the petitioners no longer possess any substantial interest in the controversy. As stated in Velasco vs. Rosenberg, where all substantial interest in the controversy has been parted with or extinguished, a motion for dismissal of the appeal is proper. Therefore, the case has become moot and academic.
Main Doctrine
A case may be dismissed for being moot and academic where all substantial interest in the controversy has been parted with or extinguished.