GR L 82405; (November, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. L-82405-06 November 24, 1988
BANQUE DE L’INDOCHINE ET DE SUEZ and BANQUE FRANCAIS DU COMMERCE EXTERIEUR, petitioners, vs. HON. RAMON AM. TORRES, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Cebu City (Branch VII), et al., respondents.
FACTS
The core dispute centered on the right to possess the vessel MV “Mayon.” Multiple claimants, including Cebu Shipyard and Engineering Works, Inc. (for repair liens), the petitioner French banks (for mortgage rights), and Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation (for alleged rebuilding expenses), filed various cases in different Philippine courts. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu, in Civil Case No. CEB-2225, ordered the vessel’s public auction, with Seven Brothers as the highest bidder. The Court of Appeals later nullified this sale. Concurrently, petitioner Banque de L’Indochine filed an admiralty suit in Makati RTC for possession to foreclose its mortgage, while Seven Brothers filed a damages suit in Manila RTC and sought to enjoin the foreclosure. The petitioners filed the instant case primarily to secure an order for the vessel’s delivery to them or for its safekeeping by authorities pending resolution of claims.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should resolve the petitioners’ plea for possession of the MV “Mayon.”
RULING
No. The petition was dismissed for being moot and academic. The Court applied the fundamental principle that judicial power is exercised only over actual cases and controversies, not abstract propositions or moot scenarios. A supervening event rendered the petition devoid of practical purpose: the MV “Mayon” had been taken outside Philippine jurisdiction to Taiwan and, by the petitioners’ own admission, could no longer be returned to the Philippines. The petitioners had even initiated arrest proceedings in Taiwan.
The legal logic is clear: the Court’s adjudication of who among the claimants is entitled to possession would be a futile exercise, as any resulting order could not be enforced on the vessel within Philippine territory. The special remedies sought by the petitioners, such as a writ for delivery of possession, are only available when no other ordinary, speedy, and adequate remedy exists. Here, potential relief could be pursued in the Taiwanese court. While the Court noted that parties responsible for the vessel’s removal should be held accountable, such punishment is separate from the now-impossible task of determining rightful possession of an absent res. Consequently, the Court declined to rule on the procedural issues, as doing so would serve no practical end.