This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2006-06-27 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Time and again, courts have refrained from even expressing an opinion in a case where the issues have become moot and academic, there being no more justiciable controversy to speak of, so that a determination thereof would be of no practical use or value.[10] | |||||
|
2004-05-19 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| In Garcia vs. COMELEC,[7] we held that "where the issues have become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, thereby rendering the resolution of the same of no practical use or value." | |||||
|
2003-12-04 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Since the Marikina Register of Deeds, on 6 January 1966, cancelled TCT No. 171720 and issued a new title in Magno's name, Baggenstos' counsels had ample opportunity to know that supervening events had rendered her petitions moot. These supervening events should have precluded the filing of the petition before the Court of Appeals in May 1996 and the instant petition in August 1996.[16] | |||||
|
2003-11-11 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In our view, the issue of whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion when it granted the motion for handwriting examination, using as basis the purported signatures of Padernilla which have not been previously established to be genuine, has become moot and academic. Where the issue has become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, thereby rendering the resolution of the same of no practical use or value.[12] Moreover, the appellate court was asked merely to determine whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion when it granted petitioner's motion. The genuineness and due execution of the questioned deed of sale is a distinct matter. The issue of genuineness of the signature appearing in the deed of sale is properly the subject of private respondents' appeal of the trial court's decision before the Court of Appeals. | |||||