G.R. No. L-20472 May 31, 1965
MARIO P. OUANO and LETICIA O. ARNAIZ, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. AMADOR E. GOMEZ, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, and ANTONIO MA. CUI, respondents.

FACTS

Anunciacion P. Vda. de Ouano, the duly appointed administratrix of the Intestate Estate of Damian M. Ouano, filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Cebu for authority to sell the estate’s one-half undivided share in four parcels of land. On August 18, 1961, the court authorized the sale of that one-half share to Atty. Antonio Ma. Cui for P155,000.00. However, a dispute arose when the administratrix moved to reject Cui’s offer, alleging that his deposit of P155,000.00 was presented as payment for the entire four parcels, not just the one-half share as ordered. Cui opposed this motion. On September 8, 1961, the lower court sustained Cui’s position, interpreting his bid as being for all four parcels, and ordered the administratrix and a co-owner to execute the deed of sale for the four parcels for P155,000.00. Petitioners Mario P. Ouano and Leticia O. Arnaiz, as heirs, filed an “Urgent Motion For Reconsideration and/or Motion to Set Aside Court’s Orders,” contending the sale was accepted without public bidding and that a higher offer of P270,000.00 existed. Their motion was denied on April 3, 1962. They filed a notice of appeal, bond, and record on appeal, but the lower court rejected the appeal on May 3, 1962, ruling that petitioners had no legal standing to interfere as there was a duly appointed administratrix, and that the administratrix’s own appeal made the petitioners’ appeal superfluous. Petitioners then sought mandamus in the Court of Appeals to compel the lower court to give due course to their appeal, but the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, sustaining the lower court’s ruling on petitioners’ lack of legal standing. During the pendency of the appeal in the Supreme Court, the administratrix moved to withdraw her original petition for authority to sell, which was granted by the lower court in an order dated March 25, 1964.

ISSUE

Whether the appeal of the petitioners should be given due course.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as moot and academic. The Court found that the present case was an incident to the administratrix’s petition for authority to sell, filed on July 24, 1961. Since that underlying petition for authority to sell had been withdrawn by the administratrix and such withdrawal was granted by the lower court in its order of March 25, 1964, the issues involved in the petitioners’ appeal had become moot and academic. The appeal was dismissed without pronouncement as to costs.