G.R. No. L-22290; October 25, 1968
EMILIANA MOLO-PECKSON, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE HON. PEDRO JL. BAUTISTA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, ATTY. DOMINGO T. DESIERTO, Acting Clerk of Court, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Emiliana Molo-Peckson and Pilar Perez-Nable, as foster children of the deceased spouses Mariano Molo and Juana Juan, received via donation inter vivos in 1948 the bulk of the spouses’ properties, including ten parcels of land in Pasay City. The donor, Juana Juan, imposed a condition that the donees sell these lots for P1.00 each to respondents Resurreccion de Leon and Juana de Leon. In 1958, respondents filed Civil Case No. 1902-P to compel petitioners to convey the lots free from encumbrances (as petitioners had mortgaged them without respondents’ consent) or pay their value at P25.00 per square meter. The trial court ordered petitioners to free the lands from mortgage liens and execute a deed of absolute sale for P10.00, or alternatively, pay the fair market value, plus attorney’s fees and an accounting of fruits. The Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-17809 affirmed this decision with modification on the accounting period. After finality, the trial court issued a writ of execution on March 16, 1963, which, in its decretal portion, omitted the alternative option for petitioners to pay the value of the lots and instead commanded them to free the lands from encumbrances and execute the deed of sale. Petitioners partially complied by paying attorney’s fees, executing a deed for their undivided share, and submitting an accounting. Respondents moved for contempt. The lower court, on August 10, 1963, issued an order directing petitioners to free the lands and execute the deed, authorizing the Clerk of Court to levy and sell petitioners’ other properties to pay off the encumbrances if they failed. Petitioners sought certiorari to annul this order. During the pendency of this certiorari action, respondents filed a motion to dismiss on June 25, 1968, alleging the case had become academic because petitioners had voluntarily freed the lots from all liens and encumbrances. Petitioners failed to comment on this motion.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for certiorari has been rendered moot and academic by the petitioners’ voluntary compliance with the writ of execution, specifically by freeing the subject lots from all liens and encumbrances.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court dismissed the case as moot and academic. The Court found that, as alleged by respondents in their motion to dismiss and not objected to by petitioners, the petitioners had voluntarily performed the act required by the writ of execution—freeing the ten parcels of land from all liens and encumbrances. Consequently, the principal question of whether petitioners could be compelled to remove those encumbrances was rendered moot. The only remaining act was the conveyance of the Nables’ undivided share, which could be accomplished by the Clerk of Court if they refused. Since the issues had become academic and petitioners did not oppose the motion to dismiss, the Court dismissed the case without costs.