GR 181642; (January, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 181642 ; January 29, 2009
RUFINO S. CAMUTIN, EDDIE P. CAMUTIN, GINA P. CAMUTIN, represented by NOMINARIO SARIA, as Attorney-in-fact, Petitioners, vs. SPS. NORBERTO POTENTE, and PASCUALA POTENTE, Respondents
FACTS
Petitioners are the registered owners of parcels of land. Upon returning to the Philippines in 1998, they discovered respondents’ house and warehouse erected on the lots. Respondents agreed to pay monthly rental and have a right of first refusal if the properties were sold. Respondents failed to pay rentals and could not purchase the lots, so petitioners sold a portion to a third party. In October 2006, respondents filed a complaint for partition before the RTC, claiming a right over one-half of the property. Petitioners then filed a complaint with the barangay to have respondents’ warehouse removed. During a barangay conference on 13 October 2006, the parties agreed to wait for the outcome of the 17 October 2006 hearing on the partition case before the RTC. After this, the parties no longer appeared before the Barangay. Petitioners subsequently filed an unlawful detainer case before the MTC. The MTC, treating the 13 October 2006 agreement as an amicable settlement to await the resolution of the partition case, ordered the proceedings in the ejectment case indefinitely suspended and archived. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the RTC challenging the MTC’s orders. The RTC granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition. Petitioners then filed this petition for review before the Supreme Court. During the pendency of this petition, the MTC revived the unlawful detainer case and subsequently dismissed it on the grounds of non-compliance with barangay conciliation requirements and because unilateral demolition and petitioners’ possession rendered the case ineffectual. Petitioners filed a notice of appeal of this dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should resolve the petition for review assailing the RTC’s dismissal of the petition for certiorari, given the subsequent dismissal of the underlying unlawful detainer case by the MTC.
RULING
The petition for review is DENIED for being moot and academic. The Supreme Court held that the MTC’s revival and subsequent dismissal of the unlawful detainer case have rendered the resolution of the present petition superfluous and unnecessary. The petition sought the nullification of the RTC’s orders and the recall of the MTC’s orders suspending and archiving the unlawful detainer case. Since the suspension has been lifted and the case has been decided, there is no more need for the Court to decide the petition on the merits.