HIAN Vs TIAN

6/9/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 850

G.R. No. 195472. January 8, 2018.*

SAMSON LIM BIO HIAN, petitioner, vs. JOAQUIN LIM
ENG TIAN, respondent.

G.R. No. 195568. January 8, 2018.*

JOHNSON LIM BIO TIONG, petitioner, vs. JOAQUIN
LIM ENG TIAN, respondent.
Judicial Review; Actual Case or Controversy; The existence of

an actual case or controversy is a necessary condition precedent to
the court’s exercise of its power of adjudication.—The existence of
an actual case or controversy is a necessary condition precedent to
the court’s exercise of its power of adjudication. An actual case or
controversy exists when there is a conflict of legal rights or an
assertion of opposite legal claims between the parties that is
susceptible or ripe for judicial resolution. In the negative, a
justiciable controversy must neither be conjectural nor moot and
academic. There must be a definite and concrete dispute touching
on the legal relations of the parties who have adverse legal
interests. The reason is that the issue ceases to be justiciable
when a controversy becomes moot and academic; otherwise, the
court would engage in rendering an advisory opinion on what the
law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.

Moot and Academic; A case becomes moot and academic
when, by virtue of supervening events, the conflicting issue that
may be resolved by the court ceases to exist.—A case becomes moot
and academic when, by virtue of supervening events, the
conflicting issue that may be resolved by the court ceases to exist.
While it is true that this court may assume jurisdiction over a
case that has been rendered moot and academic by supervening
events, the following instances must be present: (1) Grave
constitutional violations; (2) Exceptional character of the case; (3)
Paramount public interest; (4) The case presents an opportunity
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000179ee39a6168ac9e6ca000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/8
to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; or (5) The case is
capable of repetition yet evading review.
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.

14
14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lim Bio Hian vs. Lim Eng Tian
PETITIONS for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
Ramil G. Gabao for Samson Lim Bio Hian.
Oscar O. Martinez for Johnson Lim Bio Tiong.
Danilo L. Francisco for respondent Joaquin Lim Eng
Tian.
RESOLUTION

MARTIRES, J.:

These consolidated petitions for review on certiorari seek
to reverse and set aside the Decision,1 dated 26 July 2010,
and Resolution,2 dated 9 February 2011, of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 111248 which nullified
the Orders,3 dated 13 March 2009 and 17 August 2009, of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 258, Parañaque City
(RTC), in Civil Case No. 08-0246, an action for partition.

The Facts

The petitioners Samson Lim Bio Tian (Samson) and
Johnson Lim Bio Tiong (Johnson) and respondent Joaquin
Lim Eng Tian (Joaquin) are co-owners of a parcel of land
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 81239.
Respondent wanted to have the said land partitioned but
the petitioners refused to heed his demand, thus, he filed a
complaint for partition.
_______________
1 Rollo (G.R. No. 195472), pp. 15-25; penned by Associate Justice

Normandie B. Pizarro, and concurred in by Associate Justices Amelita G.
Tolentino and Ruben C. Ayson.
2 Id., at pp. 27-29.
3 Records, Vol. I, pp. 293-295 and 355-356.

15
VOL. 850, JANUARY 8, 2018 15

Summons and copies of the complaint were served upon

the petitioners who, in turn, filed their respective
pleadings. After the issues were joined, the RTC set the
case for pretrial conference on 8 December 2008. Notices
were sent to the parties and their respective counsels.
When the case was called for pretrial on 8 December
2008, only Joaquin and Johnson and their respective
counsels appeared. However, Johnson filed his pretrial
brief only on that day. Samson and his counsel also failed
to appear. Thus, the RTC issued an order,4 dated 8
December 2008, wherein it ruled that both petitioners
failed to file a pretrial brief. Joaquin was thus allowed to
submit his evidence ex parte.
On 18 December 2008, Samson moved for
reconsideration of the RTC’s 8 December 2008 order. He
averred that the non-appearance of his counsel during the
pretrial should be excused as the latter was busy attending
a seminar in Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
(MCLE). He did not, however, offer any reason for his own
failure to appear. Johnson also filed a motion for
reconsideration, arguing that he and his counsel decided to
submit personally his pretrial brief on the pretrial date
instead of by mail because they were apprehensive that the
court would not receive it on time.
On 13 March 2009, the RTC issued the first assailed
order granting the petitioners’ motions. The fallo reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion[s] for

Reconsideration filed by defendants, Samson Lim
and Johnson Lim are GRANTED and movants are
allowed to cross-examine plaintiff, Joaquin Lim Eng
Tian, and the Pretrial Brief submitted by defendant-
movants are ADMITTED.
Meanwhile, let the cross-examination of plaintiff be set

on May 4, 2009 at 8:30 in the morning.
_______________
4 Id., at pp. 135-136.

16

Notify the parties and their counsel.5 (Emphasis in the

original)

Joaquin moved for reconsideration but the same was
denied by the RTC in an order, dated 17 August 2009.
Aggrieved, Joaquin filed a petition for certiorari before the
CA.

The CA’s Ruling

In its 26 July 2010 decision, the CA nullified the orders
of the RTC. It observed that Samson did not bother to offer
any excuse for his nonappearance during the pretrial
conference nor for not filing a pretrial brief. The appellate
court added that Johnson’s excuse that he opted to
personally file his Brief on the date set for pretrial instead
of filing it by mail, because he did not rely on the mail
service, was flimsy and could not be given credence. It
opined that the rule on liberal construction was not a
license to disregard the rules of procedure because like all
rules, they are to be followed except only for the most
persuasive of reasons. The CA concluded that the RTC
acted with grave abuse of discretion in allowing the
petitioners to cross-examine Joaquin and to file a pretrial
brief; because the petitioners had clearly failed to show
that their failure to attend the pretrial conference and to
file a pretrial brief was due to fraud, accident, mistake or
excusable neglect.
The petitioners moved for reconsideration but were
denied by the CA in a resolution, dated 9 February 2011.
Undeterred, the petitioners filed a petition for review
before this Court.
Meanwhile, on 21 February 2013, the RTC rendered a

decision6 in the action for partition and ruled that
respondent, as co-owner of the parcel of land, was entitled
to demand its
_______________
5 Id., at p. 292.
6 Records, Vol. III, pp. 780-783.

17
VOL. 850, JANUARY 8, 2018 17

partition. Thereafter, the trial court denied the petitioners’

notice of appeal because it was filed out of time. The
decision of the RTC was affirmed by the CA7 and on 15
December 2016, the CA judgment became final and
executory.8

Issue
WHETHER THIS PETITION PRESENTS A

JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY AFTER THE
DECISION ON THE ACTION FOR PARTITION HAS
ALREADY BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY.

Our Ruling

The existence of an actual case or controversy is a
necessary condition precedent to the court’s exercise of its
power of adjudication. An actual case or controversy exists
when there is a conflict of legal rights or an assertion of
opposite legal claims between the parties that is
susceptible or ripe for judicial resolution. In the negative, a
justiciable controversy must neither be conjectural nor
moot and academic. There must be a definite and concrete
dispute touching on the legal relations of the parties who
have adverse legal interests. The reason is that the issue
ceases to be justiciable when a controversy becomes moot
and academic; otherwise, the court would engage in
rendering an advisory opinion on what the law would be
upon a hypothetical state of facts.9
A case becomes moot and academic when, by virtue of

supervening events, the conflicting issue that may be
resolved by the court ceases to exist.10 While it is true that
this court
_______________
7 Records, Vol. IV, pp. 1162-1169.

8 Id., at p. 1192.
9 Reyes v. The Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., 731 Phil. 155, 160; 720
SCRA 401, 406-407 (2014).
10 Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary, 466 Phil. 482, 505; 421 SCRA 656,
690 (2004).

18

may assume jurisdiction over a case that has been

rendered moot and academic by supervening events, the
following instances must be present:

(1) Grave constitutional violations;
(2) Exceptional character of the case;
(3) Paramount public interest;
(4) The case presents an opportunity to guide the
bench, the bar, and the public; or
(5) The case is capable of repetition yet evading
review.11

None of these circumstances is present in this case. It
must be noted that the petition for certiorari to assail the
decision in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 133267 was dismissed by the
CA in a decision, dated 31 March 2016.12 Entry of
Judgment was thus effected on 15 December 2016.13
Moreover, the RTC had already issued a writ of execution,
which implementation was held in abeyance upon motion
of the petitioners who conveniently used the pendency of
this petition as a ground therefor. Consequently, the issue
raised in this petition was rendered moot and academic by
the final and executory decision in the main action for
partition.
To explain further, the question presented in this
petition is merely procedural, i.e., whether the defendant
may be allowed to cross-examine the plaintiff after the trial

court had allowed the latter to present his evidence ex
parte. It is axiomatic in this jurisdiction that where a
decision on the merits of a case is rendered and the same
has become final and executory, the action on procedural
matters or issues is thereby rendered moot and academic.
Inarguably, an adjudi-
_______________
11 Republic v. Moldex Realty, Inc., G.R. No. 171041, 10 February 2016,

783 SCRA 414, 422-423.
12 Records, Vol. IV, pp. 1162-1169.
13 Id., at p. 1192.

19
VOL. 850, JANUARY 8, 2018 19

cation of the procedural issue presented for resolution

would be a futile exercise.14
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for being moot
and academic.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Bersamin, Leonen and

Gesmundo, JJ., concur.
Petition denied.
Notes.—An actual case or controversy involves a

conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims,
susceptible of judicial resolution as distinguished from a
hypothetical or abstract difference or dispute. (Philippine
Constitution Association [PHILCONSA] vs. Philippine
Government [GPH], 811 SCRA 284 [2016])
A case or controversy exists when there is an actual
dispute between parties over their legal rights, which
remains in conflict at the time the dispute is presented
before the court. (Association of Medical Clinics for
Overseas Workers, Inc. [AMCOW] vs. GCC Approved
Medical Centers Association, Inc., 812 SCRA 452 [2016])

——o0o——
_______________
14 Go v. Tabanada, 272-A Phil. 122, 126; 195 SCRA 163, 166-167

(1991).
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

HIAN Vs TIAN

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

HIAN Vs TIAN

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

6/9/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 850

G.R. No. 195472. January 8, 2018.*

Judicial Review; Actual Case or Controversy; The existence of

14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

PETITIONS for review on certiorari of the decision and

1 Rollo (G.R. No. 195472), pp. 15-25; penned by Associate Justice

VOL. 850, JANUARY 8, 2018 15

Summons and copies of the complaint were served upon

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion[s] for

Meanwhile, let the cross-examination of plaintiff be set

4 Id., at pp. 135-136.

16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Notify the parties and their counsel.5 (Emphasis in the

Meanwhile, on 21 February 2013, the RTC rendered a

VOL. 850, JANUARY 8, 2018 17

partition. Thereafter, the trial court denied the petitioners’

WHETHER THIS PETITION PRESENTS A

A case becomes moot and academic when, by virtue of

7 Records, Vol. IV, pp. 1162-1169.

18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

may assume jurisdiction over a case that has been

may be allowed to cross-examine the plaintiff after the trial

11 Republic v. Moldex Realty, Inc., G.R. No. 171041, 10 February 2016,

VOL. 850, JANUARY 8, 2018 19

cation of the procedural issue presented for resolution

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Bersamin, Leonen and

Notes.—An actual case or controversy involves a

14 Go v. Tabanada, 272-A Phil. 122, 126; 195 SCRA 163, 166-167

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like