August 1982 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > August 1982 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-27130 August 21, 1982 - PAULINA SANTOS DE PARREÑO v. JULIO VILLAMOR, ET AL.
201 Phil. 487:
201 Phil. 487:
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-27130. August 21, 1982.]
PAULINA SANTOS DE PARREÑO, assisted by her husband FERNANDO PARREÑO, and ESTATE OF THE LATE AURORA R. SANTOS, Petitioner, v. HONORABLES JULIO VILLAMOR, RAMON NOLASCO, and JESUS Y. PEREZ, as Associate Justices of the COURT OF APPEALS, Fifth Division and GREGORIA ARANZANSO, DEMETRIA VENTURA, PACITA PASION and CONSUELO PASION, Respondents.
Jose W. Diokno, for Petitioners.
Lagumbay & Associates for Private Respondent.
SYLLABUS
REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION; CERTIORARI; CASE DISMISSED FOR BEING MOOT AND ACADEMIC.— This petition for certiorari to quash the temporary restraining orders which were issued by the Court of Appeals is dismissed for having become moot and academic in view of the fact that the said temporary restraining orders were dissolved upon the dismissal of the main case by the Court of Appeals.
R E S O L U T I O N
ABAD SANTOS, J.:
This is a petition for certiorari to quash the temporary restraining orders dated August 25, 1966 and January 9, 1967, which were issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 37884-R, Aranzanso, Et. Al. v. Santos de Parreño, Et. Al.
It appears from the answer of the respondents herein that the aforesaid case was dismissed on December 12, 1966, and a motion for reconsideration was denied on February 20, 1967. The manifestation of the petitioners herein dated June 2, 1967, confirms the information given by the respondents and also states that the dismissal of the case has become final and unappealable.
It thus appears that there is no need for a decision in this case in view of the fact that the temporary restraining orders were dissolved upon the dismissal of the case by the Court of Appeals.
WHEREFORE, the case is dismissed for being moot and academic. No special pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, De Castro, and Escolin, JJ., concur.
Barredo, (Chairman), J., No part, as I am on party to this case.
It appears from the answer of the respondents herein that the aforesaid case was dismissed on December 12, 1966, and a motion for reconsideration was denied on February 20, 1967. The manifestation of the petitioners herein dated June 2, 1967, confirms the information given by the respondents and also states that the dismissal of the case has become final and unappealable.
It thus appears that there is no need for a decision in this case in view of the fact that the temporary restraining orders were dissolved upon the dismissal of the case by the Court of Appeals.
WHEREFORE, the case is dismissed for being moot and academic. No special pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, De Castro, and Escolin, JJ., concur.
Barredo, (Chairman), J., No part, as I am on party to this case.
