Mariano v. Bautista
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case originates from a complaint filed by Irene P. Mariano (now Relucio) against Francisco M. Bautista concerning a "Contract of Joint Venture" executed on May 1, 1972. The contract aimed to establish and develop a memorial park in Naga City. Mariano agreed to provide a 15-hectare parcel of land, while Bautista committed to provide all necessary cash, labor, materials, permits, and licenses. The agreement stipulated profit sharing, the establishment of a perpetual care trust fund, the formation of a management company named "Sto. Nino Memorial Park," and an initial payment of P40,000.00 from Bautista to Mariano, deductible from her share of future sales. Disputes arose regarding the accounting of gross receipts, the proper division of profits, and the management of the perpetual care fund, leading to allegations of Bautista's failure to comply with the contract terms and misuse of funds. 2. Procedural History: The underlying dispute was initiated in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Camarines Sur as Civil Case No. 7926, with Mariano filing a complaint for rescission of contract, accounting, injunction, and damages. The CFI rendered a decision on December 14, 1979, rescinding the contract, dissolving the management company, declaring Mariano the owner of the land and its fruits, and ordering various reimbursements and damages. Bautista appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals. Subsequently, Mariano filed a motion for execution pending appeal, which was granted by the CFI, leading to a Writ of Execution and a Notice of Sheriff's Sale. Bautista challenged these actions via certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which set aside the writ and notice of sale and reappointed a receiver. This led to G.R. No. L-55982, a special civil action for certiorari filed by Mariano with the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals, in its decision on July 27, 1984, modified the CFI's judgment, rescinding the contract due to mutual violations and adjusting the financial awards. This decision was the subject of G.R. No. L-69589, a petition for review on certiorari filed by Mariano. The Supreme Court consolidated both cases. 3. The Petition: G.R. No. L-55982 is a special civil action for certiorari filed by Irene P. Relucio (formerly Mariano) assailing the Court of Appeals' decision that set aside a writ of execution pending appeal and a notice of sheriff's sale, and its resolution denying her motion for reconsideration. Relucio argued that the appeal filed by Bautista was merely dilatory. G.R. No. L-69589 is a petition for review on certiorari filed by Relucio challenging the Court of Appeals' decision that modified the CFI's judgment, particularly concerning the rescission of the contract due to mutual violations and the distribution of profits and reimbursements. Relucio sought to have the appellate court's decision reviewed and potentially reversed. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed G.R. No. L-55982 as moot and academic, having already resolved G.R. No. L-69589 by denying the petition for review on certiorari due to factual issues and lack of merit.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in setting aside the Writ of Execution Pending Appeal and the Notice of Sheriff's Sale. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in modifying the CFI's decision regarding the rescission of the contract, reimbursement of expenses, and distribution of profits. Whether the amicable settlement efforts in G.R. No. L-55982 could still be pursued after the CA rendered its decision and the Supreme Court denied review of G.R. No. L-69589.
Ruling
G.R. No. L-55982 is dismissed for being moot and academic. G.R. No. L-69589 was previously denied for raising factual issues and lack of merit, and its denial became final and executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Court of Appeals' discretion regarding the Writ of Execution Pending Appeal and the Notice of Sheriff's Sale (related to G.R. No. L-69589): The petition in G.R. No. L-69589 was denied for raising factual issues, which are generally not within the purview of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The Supreme Court's role is to pass upon questions of law, not to re-examine the evidence presented in the lower courts. The denial of this petition became final and executory, meaning the decision of the Court of Appeals in that case stands. On the Court of Appeals' modification of the CFI decision (as per G.R. No. L-69589): Although G.R. No. L-69589 was denied review, the Court of Appeals' decision modified the CFI's ruling by rescinding the contract of joint venture due to mutual violations by both parties. The CA found the development of the park to be between 75% to 80% complete and adjusted the reimbursement amounts for Bautista's development costs and cash advances. The CA also prescribed a specific distribution of profits from lot sales between Bautista and Mariano based on different periods and ordered the receiver to release distributive shares, withholding a portion of Mariano's share to cover Bautista's advances. This modification by the CA, which was not disturbed by the Supreme Court's denial of review, reflects a more equitable distribution of rights and obligations arising from the failed joint venture. On the dismissal of G.R. No. L-55982: The Court found that G.R. No. L-55982 had become moot and academic. While efforts were made towards an amicable settlement, these efforts ultimately did not materialize into a formal agreement. The Court noted that the proposed amicable settlement could no longer serve any useful purpose because the Court of Appeals had already rendered a decision on the merits of the case. Furthermore, this Court had previously refused to review the decision in G.R. No. L-69589, which involved the same issues between the same parties, on the grounds that it raised factual issues and lacked merit. Therefore, further proceedings in G.R. No. L-55982 would be redundant and serve no practical purpose.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court dismissed G.R. No. L-55982 as moot and academic, noting that while G.R. No. L-69589 had been finally resolved, the amicable settlement in G.R. No. L-55982 had not materialized and could no longer serve a useful purpose given the Court of Appeals' decision on the merits and the Supreme Court's refusal to review it.