FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 187140. June 5, 2013.]
NORMA TULAY VDA. DE DOMINGUEZ, petitioner, vs. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, OSCAR Z. BENARES, AND FIRMWOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 5, 2013 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 187140 — NORMA TULAY VDA. DE DOMINGUEZ, petitioner, versus BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, OSCAR Z. BENARES, AND FIRMWOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents.
Petitioner Norma Tulay Vda. de Dominguez appeals the Decision 1 dated September 30, 2008 and Resolution 2 dated March 11, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 69294.
Briefly, the facts are as follows: Dominguez is the registered owner of a 570-square meter land with improvements located in Alabang, Muntinlupa. She executed a special power of attorney (SPA) authorizing respondents Oscar Benares and Firmwood Development Corporation (Firmwood) to mortgage said property. Benares and Firmwood mortgaged the property in consideration of certain loans granted by respondent Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) to Firmwood. When Firmwood failed to pay its loans, BPI foreclosed the mortgages and the property was sold to it as highest bidder during the auction sale. CcAIDa
Dominguez filed a complaint 3 for annulment and cancellation of mortgage and of extra-judicial foreclosure, accounting and damages, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, docketed as Civil Case No. 93-692. After due proceedings, the RTC of Makati City, Branch 136, dismissed the complaint as against BPI but found Benares and Firmwood liable to Dominguez, to wit:
Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the complaint as against defendant Bank of the Philippine Islands. Defendants Oscar Z. B[e]nares and Firmwood Development Corp., through its President Rudyard Diploma, are found to be civilly liable and are directed as follows:
1. To pay P345,000.00 plus P15,000.00 every month from March 1993 until paid;
2. To disclose all documents other than those attached as annexes to plaintiff's complaint, if any;
3. To pay P100,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as attorney's fees.
SO ORDERED. 4
Dominguez, Benares and Firmwood appealed to the CA which annulled the extrajudicial foreclosure. Appellants were given a fresh period to reacquire the mortgaged property by paying their debt recomputed based on the penalty interest set by the CA. The dispositive portion of the assailed CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The decision appealed from is MODIFIED. The penalty interest of 36% per annum, as stipulated in the promissory notes, is reduced to 12% per annum. The extrajudicial foreclosure held on 02 January 1992 is annulled. Appellants have a fresh period to reacquire the mortgaged property by paying the amount of indebtedness under the REMs as recomputed with the penalty interest herein fixed.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 5
With the CA's denial of Dominguez's motion for reconsideration she filed the instant appeal.
However, on October 17, 2012, Dominguez and BPI filed a joint motion for judgment based on compromise agreement. 6 The compromise agreement 7 reads as follows:
Compromise Agreement
This compromise and settlement agreement is made by and between NORMA TULAY VDA DE DOMINGUEZ (hereafter referred to as PETITIONER), whose address is 204 Caliraya St. AAV, Muntinlupa City, and BPI and certain BPI officials (hereafter referred to as RESPONDENTS), whose address is 4th Floor BPI Family Bank Bldg., Paseo de Roxas corner dela Rosa St., Makati City.
The parties stipulate to the following:
1. PETITIONER asserts various claims against RESPONDENTS arising from, among others, the 1992 foreclosure by RESPONDENT bank of PETITIONER's house and lot located at 204 Caliraya St. AAV, Muntinlupa City.
2. Actions based on this claim are now pending in (1) the Supreme Court, G.R. No. 187140, entitled "Norma Tulay Vda. de Dominguez versus BPI, Oscar Z. Benares, et al."; (2) and the Department of Justice before which a criminal case is pending, previously docketed with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Muntinlupa as NPS Docket No. XV-08-INV-11D00494, entitled "Norma Tulay Vda. de Dominguez and Aristotle T. Dominguez versus Gil Buenaventura, et al.".
3. RESPONDENTS deny any liability in connection with the alleged claims.
4. The parties wish to reach a full and final settlement of the action and all matters arising from the dispute referred to above.
5. Therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth, the parties agree to the following: HECTaA
a. RESPONDENTS will allow PETITIONER to buy back her property located at 204 Caliraya St. AAV, Muntinlupa City (of which PETITIONERis still in possession despite its foreclosure in 1992) at the buy-back price of Php8,800,000.00,as in fact RESPONDENT bank has already accepted the 10% (Php880,000.00) of the buy-back price on 5 October 2012, and has deposited on 8 October 2012 in its (BPI) account Manager's Check # 0000011995 issued by Security Bank in the amount of Php880,000.00 — with the remaining 90% (Php7,920,000.00) to be paid on or before 24 October 2012.
b. Upon the signing of this compromise agreement, PETITIONER will prepare a joint motion for the withdrawal of the two actions mentioned above, and the RESPONDENT bank shall sign the joint motion, praying for the dismissal of the pending actions with prejudice.
c. Each party releases the other from all rights and claims that they may have against the other arising from the dispute described above.
d. This agreement is a compromise of a disputed matter and may not be construed as an admission of any party's liability.
e. This agreement was the result of a negotiated settlement and may not be construed as having been prepared by any one party.
f. In the event any action is instituted to enforce the provisions of this agreement, the prevailing party will be entitled to recover attorney fees.
g. This agreement is intended to bind and benefit the parties, their heirs, agents, legal representatives, assigns, and successors in interest. (Emphasis supplied).
In their comment, 8 Benares and Firmwood interposed no objection on the compromise agreement.
As of this date, we have not received the joint motion to withdraw the instant petition referred to in paragraph 5 (b) of the compromise agreement. Nor can we pre-empt the Department of Justice as to its action on the criminal case pending before it.
Nonetheless, the voluntary agreement allowing Dominguez to buy back her property and BPI's receipt of 10% of the buy-back price had rendered moot the issues in this case. A moot and academic cases is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical value. As a rule, courts decline jurisdiction over such case, or dismiss it on ground of mootness. 9 Here, the buy-back agreement renders without practical value any ruling of this Court on the validity of the CA order which annulled the extra-judicial foreclosure and gave Dominguez, Benares and Firmwood a fresh period to reacquire the mortgaged property by paying the amount of their recomputed debt.
ACCORDINGLY, we DENY the instant petition for review on certiorari on the ground of MOOTNESS.
SO ORDERED." REYES, J.,no part; DEL CASTILLO, J., additional member per raffle dated September 26, 2012. CSIcTa
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 103-121. Penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. with the concurrence of Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes (now a Member of this Court) and Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo.
2.Id. at 122-123.
3.Id. at 160-182.
4.Id. at 103-104. Penned by Judge Jose P. Bautista.
5.Id. at 120.
6.Id. at 612-617.
7.Id. at 618-620.
8.Id. at 629-631.
9.Mendoza v. Villas, G.R. No. 187256, February 23, 2011, 644 SCRA 347, 357.