AM 5440; (May, 1977) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5440 May 31, 1977
SANTIAGO SYJUCO, INC., petitioner, vs. CITY ASSESSOR OF PASAY CITY, respondent.
FACTS
Santiago Syjuco, Inc. is the registered owner of two parcels of land with improvements in Pasay City. In 1964, the City Assessor assessed these properties for taxation at P512,670.00. The petitioner sought a reconsideration, which was denied. It then appealed to the Board of Assessment Appeals of Pasay City, which, in a decision dated November 6, 1964, reduced the assessment to its previous value of P116,690.00.
The City Assessor refused to implement the Board’s decision and instead elevated the matter for review to the Secretary of Finance pursuant to Republic Act No. 3275 . In the interim, Santiago Syjuco, Inc. filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Tax Appeals, praying for an order to compel the City Assessor to implement the Board’s decision and for an award of damages. The Court of Tax Appeals dismissed the petition in a resolution dated November 5, 1965, on grounds of lack of jurisdiction.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Tax Appeals correctly dismissed the Petition for Review for lack of jurisdiction.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition as moot and academic, rendering a substantive ruling on the jurisdictional issue unnecessary. The procedural history reveals that after the Court of Tax Appeals’ dismissal, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review with the Supreme Court on December 16, 1965, assigning as error the Tax Court’s finding of lack of jurisdiction. The case remained pending for over a decade.
In a Minute Resolution dated May 6, 1977, the Supreme Court required the parties to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed for having become moot and academic due to the considerable lapse of time. In a Manifestation dated May 25, 1977, counsel for Santiago Syjuco, Inc., Atty. Antonio C. Pastelero, informed the Court that the issues in the petition had already been settled. Consequently, the Court found no live controversy requiring adjudication. The legal principle applied is that courts will not determine questions that no longer present an actual, substantial controversy. Where a supervening event, such as a settlement between the parties, renders the core dispute academic, any judicial declaration on the merits or on procedural errors like jurisdiction would be advisory. Therefore, the Petition for Review was dismissed without a ruling on the assigned error regarding the Court of Tax Appeals’ jurisdiction and without pronouncement as to costs.