Desaville v. Gatchalian, Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Alfredo M. Desaville Jr. entered into a contract to sell with private respondent Robert V. Gatchalian, Inc. for a house and lot, agreeing to pay an installment price of P1,800,000. Petitioner paid P882,810.99 upon signing. Due to petitioner's failure to make further payments, private respondent filed a complaint for recovery of possession based on the cancellation of the contract to sell. 2. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of private respondent, ordering petitioner to vacate the property, pay rentals, and attorney's fees. Petitioner appealed this decision. Subsequently, private respondent filed a motion for execution of judgment pending appeal, which the RTC granted, issuing a writ of execution. Petitioner posted a counterbond to stay the execution, but the RTC expunged the counterbond and denied petitioner's subsequent motions. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, seeking to nullify the RTC's orders. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, upholding the RTC's orders. 3. The Petition: This petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the decision of the Court of Appeals. Petitioner argues that the RTC and Court of Appeals erred in granting execution pending appeal and denying his counterbond, contending that the perfected appeal divested the RTC of jurisdiction and that his right to due process was violated. He also argues that the RTC abused its discretion in disapproving the counterbond, citing the mandatory language of Rule 39, Section 3 of the old Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the Supreme Court noted that petitioner had since abandoned the premises, rendering the case moot and academic.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent trial court and Court of Appeals committed errors of law in granting the execution of judgment pending appeal and denying the counterbond filed for purposes of staying execution of judgment pending appeal, which is now moot due to the petitioner's abandonment of the premises. Whether the payment by petitioner of P882,810.00 under the contract to sell should be considered material and significant in ordering petitioner to vacate and surrender possession and pay attorney's fees without affording him an opportunity to pursue his perfected appeal after filing a counterbond, which is now moot due to the petitioner's abandonment of the premises.
Ruling
The petition is denied for being moot and academic. The Supreme Court held that courts will not determine moot questions as there is no actual interest involved and no substantial relief can be granted.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of execution pending appeal and denial of counterbond: The Supreme Court noted that private respondent manifested that petitioner had abandoned the premises subject of the case. This abandonment rendered the main issue of recovery of possession moot and academic. The Court reiterated the well-settled rule that courts will not determine moot questions where no actual interests are involved and no substantial relief can be granted. The abandonment of the premises signified petitioner's compliance with the order to vacate, thus negating the need for the Court to pass upon the validity of the execution pending appeal or the denial of the counterbond. The Court emphasized that where issues have become moot and academic, there ceases to be any justiciable controversy, rendering the resolution of the same of no practical value. Therefore, the Court abstained from expressing an opinion as no legal relief was needed or called for. On the materiality of petitioner's payment and opportunity to appeal: While the petitioner argued that his substantial payment under the contract to sell should have been considered and that he was denied due process, these arguments became moot due to his subsequent abandonment of the property. The core issue was the recovery of possession, and his act of abandoning the premises effectively rendered the dispute over possession resolved. Consequently, any discussion on the merits of the execution pending appeal or the denial of the counterbond, or the significance of his initial payment, would serve no useful purpose. The Court's primary concern shifted to the supervening event that mooted the controversy.
Main Doctrine
A petition becomes moot and academic when the issue it seeks to resolve has been rendered moot by supervening events, such as the abandonment of the premises subject of a recovery of possession case, rendering the Court's resolution of no practical value.