BELDAD, MARY BERNADETTE L.

EDUARDO T. ABAD vs. LEONARDO BIASON and GABRIEL A. MAGNO

G.R. No. 191993 687 SCRA
December 5, 2012

TOPIC: Guardians and Guardianship

FACTS:
Sometime in 2007, petitioner Eduardo Abad (Abad) filed a petition for
guardianship over the person and properties of Maura B. Abad (Maura) with the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Dagupan City. In support thereof, Abad alleged that he maintains
residence in Quezon City and that he is Maura’s nephew. He averred that Maura, who is
single, more than ninety (90) years old and a resident of Pangasinan, is in dire need of a
guardian who will look after her and her business affairs. Due to her advanced age,
Maura is already sickly and can no longer manage to take care of herself and her
properties unassisted thus becoming an easy prey of deceit and exploitation.

Later on, Leonardo Biason (Biason) filed a Motion for Leave to File Opposition to
the Petition and attached therewith his Opposition to the Appointment of Eduardo Abad
as Guardian of the Person and Properties of Maura B. Abad. The RTC rendered a Decision
denying Abad’s petition and appointing Biason as Maura’s guardian. Abad’s Motion for
Reconsideration was also denied. On appeal, the CA dismissed Abad’s petition and his
Motion for Reconsideration was denied. Hence a petition review on certiorari was filed
by Abad.

Unfortunately, pending the resolution of the instant petition, Biason died. Maura
filed a Manifestation and Motion, informing the Court that Biason passed away due to
multiple organ failure, septic shock, community acquired pneumonia high risk, prostate
CA with metastasis, and attached a copy of his Death Certificate. Maura averred that
Biason’s death rendered moot and academic the issues raised in the petition. She thus
prayed that the petition be dismissed and the guardianship be terminated. Abad filed
his Comment and expressed his acquiescence to Maura’s motion to dismiss the petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the guardianship is terminated.

HELD:
Yes. The guardianship is terminated because the petition becomes moot and
academic due to the death of the respondent Biason. The Court ruled that, basically,
Abad’s petition was challenging Biason’s qualifications and the procedure by which the
RTC appointed him as guardian for Maura. However, with Biason’s demise, it has become
impractical and futile to proceed with resolving the merits of the petition. It is a well-
established rule that the relationship of guardian and ward is necessarily terminated by
the death of either the guardian or the ward. The supervening event of death rendered
it pointless to delve into the propriety of Biason’s appointment since the juridical tie
between him and Maura has already been dissolved. The petition, regardless of its
disposition, will not afford Abad, or anyone else for that matter, any substantial relief.
BELDAD, MARY BERNADETTE L.

Moreover, Abad, in his Comment, shared Maura’s belief that the petition has lost its
purpose and even consented to Maura’s prayer for the dismissal of the petition. Hence,
the petition is DISMISSED.
BELDAD, MARY BERNADETTE L.

MARICRIS D. DOLOT, CHAIRMAN OF THE BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN-SORSOGON

vs. HON. RAMON PAJE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, REYNULFO A. JUAN, REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
MINES AND GEOSCIENCES BUREAU, DENR, HON. RAUL R. LEE, GOVERNOR, PROVINCE OF
SORSOGON, ANTONIO C. OCAMPO, JR., VICTORIA A. AJERO, ALFREDO M. AGUILAR, AND
JUAN M. AGUILAR, ANTONES ENTERPRISES, GLOBAL SUMMIT MINES DEV'T CORP., AND TR
ORE

G.R. No. 199199

August 27, 2013

TOPIC: Continuing Mandamus

FACTS:

In, 2011, petitioner Maricris D. Dolot (Dolot), together with the parish priest of the
Holy Infant Jesus Parish and the officers of Alyansa Laban sa Mina sa Matnog (petitioners),
filed a petition for continuing mandamus, damages and attorney’s fees with the RTC of
Sorsogon. The petition contained the following pertinent allegations: (1) sometime in
2009, they protested the iron ore mining operations being conducted by Antones
Enterprises, Global Summit Mines Development Corporation and TR Ore in Barangays
Balocawe and Bon-ot Daco, located in the Municipality of Matnog, to no avail; (2)
Matnog is located in the southern tip of Luzon and there is a need to protect, preserve
and maintain the geological foundation of the municipality; (3) Matnog is susceptible to
flooding and landslides, and confronted with the environmental dangers of flood hazard,
liquefaction, ground settlement, ground subsidence and landslide hazard; (4) after
investigation, they learned that the mining operators did not have the required permit to
operate; (5) Sorsogon Governor Raul Lee and his predecessor Sally Lee issued to the
operators a small-scale mining permit, which they did not have authority to issue; (6) the
representatives of the Presidential Management Staff and the DENR, despite knowledge,
did not do anything to protect the interest of the people of Matnog; and (7) the
respondents violated Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7076 or the People’s Small-Scale Mining Act
of 1991, R.A. No. 7942 or the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, and the Local Government
Code.

Thus, they prayed for the following reliefs: (1) the issuance of a writ commanding
the respondents to immediately stop the mining operations in the Municipality of Matnog;
(2) the issuance of a temporary environment protection order or TEPO; (3) the creation
of an inter-agency group to undertake the rehabilitation of the mining site; (4) award of
damages; and (5) return of the iron ore, among others.

However, the RTC summarily dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. A Motion
for Reconsideration was filed but was denied. In its Resolution for the MR, the RTC ruled
that: (1) there was no final court decree, order or decision yet that the public officials
BELDAD, MARY BERNADETTE L.

allegedly failed to act on, which is a condition for the issuance of the writ of continuing
mandamus, among others.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for the issuance of writ of continuing mandamus is
proper?

HELD:
Yes. The Writ of continuing mandamus is proper. The writ of continuing mandamus
is a special civil action that may be availed of "to compel the performance of an act
specifically enjoined by law." The petition should mainly involve an environmental and
other related law, rule or regulation or a right therein. The RTC’s mistaken notion on the
need for a final judgment, decree or order is apparently based on the definition of the
writ of continuing mandamus under Section 4, Rule 1 of the Rules. The final court decree,
order or decision erroneously alluded to by the RTC actually pertains to the judgment or
decree that a court would eventually render in an environmental case for continuing
mandamus and which judgment or decree shall subsequently become final.

Under the Rules, after the court has rendered a judgment in conformity with Rule
8, Section 7 and such judgment has become final, the issuing court still retains jurisdiction
over the case to ensure that the government agency concerned is performing its tasks
as mandated by law and to monitor the effective performance of said tasks. It is only
upon full satisfaction of the final judgment, order or decision that a final return of the writ
shall be made to the court and if the court finds that the judgment has been fully
implemented, the satisfaction of judgment shall be entered in the court docket. A writ of
continuing mandamus is, in essence, a command of continuing compliance with a final
judgment as it "permits the court to retain jurisdiction after judgment in order to ensure
the successful implementation of the reliefs mandated under the court’s decision."

Hence, since the RTC of Sorsogon is an improper venue for the petition, the Court
directed the Executive Judge of the RTC Sorsogon to transfer the case to the RTC of Irosin,
Branch 55 for further proceedings with dispatch.