FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 237509. October 5, 2020.]
SPOUSES ROGELIO AND EMARITA V. SALAS, JULIEANN-ROSE V. SALAS, SPOUSES ROBERT AGULTO AND MARIA CHRISTINA S. AGULTO, AND SPOUSES ARNEL TOBIAS AND MARY CHRISELLE S. TOBIAS, petitioners, vs. SPOUSES BUENAVENTURA SALAS AND LITA CALMA SALAS, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated October 5, 2020 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 237509 — SPOUSES ROGELIO AND EMARITA V. SALAS, JULIEANN-ROSE V. SALAS, SPOUSES ROBERT AGULTO AND MARIA CHRISTINA S. AGULTO, AND SPOUSES ARNEL TOBIAS AND MARY CHRISELLE S. TOBIAS, petitioners versusSPOUSES BUENAVENTURA SALAS AND LITA CALMA SALAS, respondents.
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant petition 1 for having been rendered moot by the October 4, 2019 Order 2 of Branch 48, Regional Trial Court of San Fernando City, Pampanga (RTC), in Civil Case No. 14363, which dismissed the case for Delivery of Possession with Application for Preliminary Prohibitory and Mandatory Injunction for lack of jurisdiction.
The Court notes that herein respondents, who are the plaintiffs before the RTC, have withdrawn their Motion for Reconsideration of the aforesaid RTC Order. 3 Consequently, petitioners themselves manifested that in an Order dated October 29, 2019, the RTC already declared the dismissal of the case as final and executory. 4
A case is moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events such that a declaration thereof would be of no practical value. 5 In such instance, there is no actual substantial relief which a petitioner would be entitled to, and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition. Courts generally decline jurisdiction over such case or dismiss it on the ground of mootness. This is because the judgment will not serve any useful purpose or have any practical legal effect because, in the nature of things, it cannot be enforced. 6
With the dismissal of the case before the RTC, the Court no longer finds it necessary to rule on whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the petition for certiorari filed by petitioners. The Court finds it appropriate to refrain from passing upon the merits of this case where legal relief is no longer needed nor called for.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for being moot and academic.
The Compliance with Explanation and Deep Apologies 7 filed by petitioners' counsel and the Compliance with Explanation and Apology 8 filed by respondents' counsel are NOTED.
Likewise, petitioners' Manifestation 9 and respondents' Manifestation and Motion for Issuance of Certificate of Finality of Resolution 10 are also NOTED.
Respondents are required to SUBMIT a verified declaration of the signed manifestation and motion for issuance of certificate of finality of resolution, and Atty. Peter Paul S. Maglalang and petitioners are directed to SUBMIT a soft copy in compact disc, USB or e-mail containing the PDF file of the signed compliance and manifestation, within five (5) days from notice, and all pursuant to A.M. Nos. 10-3-7-SC and 11-9-4-SC.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 16-38.
2.Id. at 199-202. Penned by Presiding Judge Christine Marie C. Capule.
3.Id. at 211-212.
4.Id. at 206.
5.Mendoza v. Villas, 659 Phil. 409, 417 (2011).
6.Peñafrancia Sugar Mill, Inc. v. Sugar Regulatory Administration, 728 Phil. 535, 540 (2014).
7.Rollo, pp. 175-179.
8.Id. at 193-195.
9.Id. at 205-207
10.Id. at 241-244.