G.R. No. L-46005 August 24, 1984
BASILISA GENEROSO and NARCISO MERCED, petitioners, vs. JUDGE CIPRIANO VAMENTA, JR., Court of First Instance, Dumaguete City Branch III, and HEIRS OF TEODORA C. NICOLAS LAGASCA, et al., respondents.

FACTS

The Court of Appeals, in a 1975 decision, allowed petitioner Basilisa Generoso to redeem a one-sixth pro indiviso share in a Dumaguete property from respondent Teodora Lagasca for P4,000 within thirty days from the finality of the judgment. This Court affirmed the decision, which became final on April 4, 1976. Basilisa had initially deposited the redemption price in 1970, but her lawyer, Jose G. Hernando, Jr., withdrew and misappropriated the funds in 1975. She made a second deposit on November 29, 1976. Respondent Judge Cipriano Vamenta, Jr., in an order dated February 11, 1977, disallowed this redemption, ruling it was made beyond the thirty-day period which expired on May 4, 1976. Basilisa assailed this order via certiorari.
While this certiorari petition was pending, Basilisa, without informing the Court, sold the disputed one-sixth interest to Natividad Delgado on November 28, 1977, for P40,000. Subsequently, it was revealed that Ang Tay had purchased the other five-sixths share of the property from other co-owners and was also negotiating to buy the one-sixth share held by the heirs of the deceased respondent Lagasca. Given these sales, respondent’s counsel moved to dismiss the case, arguing the petitioners had divested themselves of any interest in the controversy.

ISSUE

Whether the instant certiorari petition has been rendered moot and academic, warranting its dismissal.

RULING

Yes, the petition is dismissed for being moot and academic. The core legal logic is that courts will not adjudicate a case when a judgment can no longer provide any actual relief or affect the rights of the litigants. Here, the petitioners voluntarily alienated the very property interest that was the subject of the redemption dispute and the subsequent certiorari proceeding. By selling the controverted one-sixth share to a third party, petitioner Basilisa Generoso parted with all substantial interest in the controversy. Consequently, even if the Court were to rule on the propriety of the trial judge’s order disallowing the late redemption, such a ruling would be ineffectual. The petitioner, having sold the property, could no longer be restored to the position of a redeeming co-owner, and a judicial declaration would serve no practical purpose. The principle applied is that where a party has divested itself of interest in the subject matter, the case becomes moot. As held in Velasco vs. Rosenberg, dismissal is proper when all substantial interest in the controversy has been extinguished. The motion to dismiss is granted.