Castillo v. Bank of the Philippine Islands
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: In 1997, Prudential Bank, now Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), extended loans totaling at least P20 million to Teodorico and Alice Castillo. To secure these loans, the Castillos mortgaged a property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 102607. The Castillos subsequently defaulted on their loan payments, leading BPI to initiate extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings. 2. Procedural History: Following the default, BPI filed a Petition for Extrajudicial Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage. At the auction sale held on November 26, 2008, BPI emerged as the highest bidder. After the Castillos failed to redeem the property, BPI filed a Petition for Ex Parte Issuance of Writ of Possession before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan. The RTC granted the petition on September 23, 2011, ordering the issuance of a writ of possession. The Castillos appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed their appeal on June 16, 2014, and subsequently denied their motion for reconsideration on September 1, 2014. 3. The Petition: The petitioners, Teodorico Castillo, Alice Castillo, and St. Ezekiel School, Inc., filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's dismissal of their appeal and its resolution denying their motion for reconsideration. The core of their challenge was the CA's affirmation of the RTC's order granting the writ of possession. However, during the pendency of the petition before the Supreme Court, the petitioners filed a Withdrawal of Petition on October 13, 2016, citing a compromise agreement. The Court subsequently dismissed the petition as moot and academic due to the withdrawal and the respondent's lack of comment.
Issue(s)
Whether the Petition for Review on Certiorari has become moot and academic. Whether the respondent's inaction on the withdrawal of the petition constitutes implied concurrence.
Ruling
The Petition is DISMISSED. Considering the lapse of time since the filing of the petitioners' Withdrawal of Petition and the lack of action on respondent's part, it appears that the instant Petition has been rendered moot and academic, and is thus ripe for dismissal. Since the withdrawal of the Petition came upon the initiative of petitioners, respondent's inaction may be considered to be an implied concurrence or approval of the same.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the Petition being moot and academic: The Supreme Court found that the Petition for Review on Certiorari had become moot and academic. This determination was based on the petitioners' voluntary filing of a Withdrawal of Petition, citing a compromise agreement. The Court noted that a significant period had elapsed since this withdrawal was filed. Furthermore, the respondent, Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), had failed to file its comment despite being explicitly required by the Court to do so. This prolonged inaction from the respondent, coupled with the petitioners' initiative to withdraw, led the Court to conclude that the case no longer presented a justiciable controversy requiring resolution. On the issue of implied concurrence due to inaction: The Supreme Court considered the respondent's failure to file a comment on the petitioners' Withdrawal of Petition as an implied concurrence or approval of the withdrawal. In legal practice, when a party is given an opportunity to respond to a motion or pleading and fails to do so within the prescribed period, their silence can be interpreted as acquiescence or agreement to the relief sought. In this instance, BPI's inaction, after being formally required by the Court to comment on the withdrawal, was taken as an indication that the bank did not oppose the dismissal of the petition. This interpretation is consistent with the principle that parties are expected to actively participate in the proceedings and voice any objections they may have.
Main Doctrine
A petition for review on certiorari that has been withdrawn by the petitioners, and to which the respondent has not filed a comment despite being required, is considered moot and academic and thus ripe for dismissal, with the respondent's inaction implying concurrence.