GR L 29917; (May, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-29917 May 22, 1982
FOREMOST ENTERPRISES, INC., petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and ONGSIONG, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Foremost Enterprises, Inc. filed an ejectment case against respondent Ong Siong in the City Court of Manila. The case was appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila, where Judge Gregorio T. Lantin rendered a decision on February 28, 1968, ordering Ong Siong to vacate the premises at 431 Bustillos, Sampaloc, Manila, and to pay accrued rentals and attorney’s fees. Ong Siong filed a notice of appeal, bond, and record on appeal to the Court of Appeals, where the main ejectment case was docketed as CA- G.R. No. 41984 -R.
While that appeal was pending, Foremost filed a motion in the CFI for execution of the judgment pending appeal. Judge Lantin granted the motion in an order dated April 20, 1968, later amended on April 29, 1968, citing that Foremost had acquired the property in 1966, had demanded vacation since July 1966, and that nearly two years of litigation had prejudiced its desire to utilize the premises for its business. Ong Siong’s motions for reconsideration were denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly set aside the CFI’s order granting execution pending appeal.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition as moot and academic. The legal logic is straightforward: the resolution of the procedural issue concerning execution pending appeal was rendered unnecessary by a supervening event. During the pendency of this petition for review, the Court of Appeals had already dismissed Ong Siong’s appeal in the main ejectment case (CA- G.R. No. 41984 -R) in a resolution dated March 29, 1969, with entry of judgment on August 2, 1969. Consequently, the CFI decision in the ejectment case became final and executory.
When a judgment becomes final and executory, it is the duty of the court to order its execution. Therefore, the specific controversy over the propriety of execution pending appeal was extinguished. The Court’s ruling on the matter would be a purely academic exercise, as the legal basis for issuing an execution had conclusively shifted from discretionary grounds for immediate execution to the ministerial duty to execute a final judgment. Courts do not determine moot cases or issue advisory opinions. The petition was dismissed.