SPOUSES DAISY and SOCRATES M. AREVALO, v.

PLANTERS
DEVELOPMENT BANK and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF PARAAQUE CITY, G.
R. No. 193415, April 18, 2012 citing Buyco v. Baraquia, G.R. No. 177486, 21
December 2009, 608 SCRA 699.

The writ is provisional because it constitutes a temporary measure

availed of during the pendency of the action and it is ancillary because it is a
mere incident in and is dependent upon the result of the main action.
It is well-settled that the sole object of a preliminary injunction, whether
prohibitory or mandatory, is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case
can be heard. It is usually granted when it is made to appear that there is a
substantial controversy between the parties and one of them is committing an act
or threatening the immediate commission of an act that will cause irreparable
injury or destroy the status quo of the controversy before a full hearing can be had
on the merits of the case.
xxxxxxxxx
The present case having been heard and found dismissible as it was in
fact dismissed, the writ of preliminary injunction is deemed lifted, its
purpose as a provisional remedy having been served, the appeal therefrom
notwithstanding.

A case becomes moot and academic when there is no more actual controversy
between the parties or useful purpose that can be served in passing upon the
merits.

(SPOUSES DAISY and SOCRATES M. AREVALO, v. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT

BANK and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF PARAAQUE CITY, G. R. No. 193415, April
18, 2012 citing Tantoy, Sr. v. Hon. Judge Abrogar, 497 Phil. 615 (2005).)
STRADCOM CORPORATION v. HONORABLE HILARIO L. LAQUI as Acting Presiding
Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 97 and DTECH
MANAGEMENT, INC., G.R. No. 172712, March 21, 2012

A case becomes moot and academic when, by virtue of supervening

events,1 there is no more actual controversy between the parties and no useful
purpose can be served in passing upon the merits.2 Since they are constituted to
pass upon substantial rights, courts of justice will not consider questions where
no actual interests are involved.3 As a rule, courts decline jurisdiction over such
cases or dismiss them on the ground of mootness.4

1 Vilando v. House of Representative Electoral Tribunal, G.R. Nos. 192147 & 192149, 23 August 2011.
2 Samson v. Caterpillar, Inc., G.R. No. 169882, 12 September 2007, 533 SCRA 88, 96.
3 Huibonhoa v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 153785, 3 August 2006, 497 SCRA 562, 572.
4 Mendoza v. Villas, G.R. Nos. 187256, 23 February 2011, 644 SCRA 347, 357.