G.R. No. L-53692 November 26, 1986
LOURDES RAMOS, ENRIQUE RAMOS, MILAGROS RAMOS, ANTONIO RAMOS, and ANGELITA RAMOS, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. GUILLERMO N. PABLO, PRIMITIVA C. CRUZ, the EX-OFFICIO SHERIFF OF QUEZON CITY, and the REGISTER OF DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Plaintiffs-appellants, heirs of Socorro Ramos, filed a complaint for damages against defendants-appellees Guillermo Pablo and Primitiva Cruz. The dispute originated from a 1963 Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Socorro Ramos in favor of Pablo and Cruz over a parcel of land. This sale was conditioned on non-registration pending the final outcome of a Supreme Court case (G.R. No. L-16797) involving a mortgage on the same property in favor of Rodrigo Enriquez. The complaint alleged that Socorro Ramos acted in bad faith by selling the property without disclosing the pending foreclosure suit. After her death, the plaintiffs-heirs refused the buyers’ demands to either substitute the lost land from the estate or pay its equivalent value, leading to this suit for actual, moral, and exemplary damages.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint after filing their answer, citing res judicata, improper remedy, failure to allege shocking inadequacy of price, and that the case was moot and academic. The trial court granted the motion, primarily on the ground of mootness. It reasoned that the rights of the parties were already subordinated to Rodrigo Enriquez in a separate foreclosure case (Civil Case No. Q-7229), rendering the instant case academic. The plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint on the ground that the case had become moot and academic.

RULING

No, the trial court erred in dismissing the case as moot and academic. The Supreme Court found the dismissal premature and not based on the evidence on record. The legal logic is that a case becomes moot only when there is no more actual controversy between the parties or when the issues have ceased to exist. Here, the trial court gratuitously assumed that an order issued in the separate foreclosure case (Civil Case No. Q-7229) had already allowed the foreclosure of the subject property. The Supreme Court clarified that the records showed no actual foreclosure had yet been effected. Therefore, the rights and obligations of the parties concerning the sale and the consequent claim for damages remained live and unresolved.
The Court emphasized that the determination of mootness is a matter that should be passed upon during a trial on the merits, not in a motion to dismiss. The outcome of the foreclosure case was precisely what would define the parties’ subsequent rights—whoever ultimately prevailed would have the right to pay off the mortgage to Enriquez. The plaintiffs’ cause of action for damages arising from the alleged bad faith sale was independent and not extinguished by the mere existence of the foreclosure proceeding. Consequently, the Orders of dismissal were set aside and the case was remanded to the trial court for a proper trial on the merits.