G.R. No. 80390 March 27, 1998
CITY SHERIFF, ILIGAN CITY and SPOUSES ANGEL L. BAUTISTA and ANGELICA M. BAUTISTA, petitioners, vs. ALFARO FORTUNADO, EDITHA FORTUNADO, & NESTOR FORTUNADO, respondents.

FACTS

Respondents Alfaro, Editha, and Nestor Fortunado are the registered owners of two parcels of land. These properties were mortgaged by Arsenio Lopez, Jr. to Traders Commercial Bank (now Traders Royal Bank) on July 24, 1968, to secure a loan. On January 6, 1971, respondents filed an action for annulment of mortgage against Arsenio Lopez, Jr. and Traders Royal Bank. The bank counterclaimed for foreclosure. On August 24, 1973, the trial court declared the mortgage null and void and ordered its cancellation. On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified this decision by eliminating the portion declaring the mortgage null and void, affirming the decision in all other respects. On December 28, 1983, Traders Royal Bank assigned its rights under the mortgage to petitioner Angel L. Bautista. Based on this assignment, Bautista requested the City Sheriff of Iligan City to foreclose the properties on March 19, 1984. To stop the foreclosure, respondents filed a complaint for cancellation of lien with preliminary injunction (Civil Case No. 262). The trial court initially granted summary judgment and dismissed the complaint on July 31, 1985. Upon respondents’ motion for reconsideration, arguing that the mortgage should be extinguished if the principal loan was paid, the trial court reversed itself in an Order dated January 24, 1986, granting a permanent injunction against the foreclosure and ordering the cancellation of the mortgage lien. Petitioners appealed. The Court of Appeals forwarded the case to the Supreme Court, stating the appeal raised pure questions of law. During the pendency of the Supreme Court petition, respondents filed a verified Manifestation dated January 30, 1995, informing the Court that the real estate mortgage had been released by Traders Royal Bank on December 23, 1983, and that petitioner Angel L. Bautista had been killed.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for review on certiorari, which seeks to nullify the trial court’s order permanently enjoining the foreclosure of the mortgage, has been rendered moot and academic.

RULING

Yes, the petition is dismissed for being moot and academic. The Supreme Court held that the resolution of the basic issue of whether the petitioner had the right to extra-judicially foreclose the mortgage was no longer necessary in view of the release of the mortgage as shown by a certified true copy. The Court ruled that no useful purpose would be served by deciding the merits, as courts will not determine moot questions or abstract propositions when no practical relief can be granted. Furthermore, the Court reprimanded petitioner’s counsel, Atty. Emilio Abrogena, for his failure to inform the trial court of the death of petitioner Angel L. Bautista, as required by Section 16, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court, and for his failure to inform the Supreme Court of his change of address, which prevented him from commenting on respondents’ manifestation. The Court emphasized a lawyer’s primary duty as an officer of the court to the administration of justice.