G.R. No. L-33774 April 9, 1987
Eduardo J. Berenguer, et al., petitioners, vs. The Hon. Ubaldo Y. Arcangel, et al., respondents.

FACTS

The testator, Jose Martinez Berenguer, died in 1965. His will was admitted to probate, appointing his widow, respondent Dominga Vda. de Berenguer, and his son, petitioner Jose Berenguer, Jr., as joint executors. In 1967, Jose Berenguer, Jr. was removed. Later, in 1971, the probate court reinstated him as co-executor but, in a subsequent order dated March 29, 1971, restricted his role. The court ordered him not to interfere with the management of the estate, limiting him to acting merely as the “eye and ear” of the other heirs. Petitioners challenged this order via certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the respondent judge in effectively nullifying the co-executor’s administrative powers.
The Supreme Court initially issued a preliminary injunction. During the protracted proceedings, the heirs negotiated and eventually executed a compromise agreement partitioning the estate. This compromise partition was approved by the probate court in 1973. Consequently, the core issue concerning the propriety of the 1971 order restricting the co-executor became intertwined with the subsequent settlement among the parties.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for certiorari, challenging the probate court’s order limiting a co-executor’s powers, has been rendered moot and academic by subsequent events, particularly the approval of a compromise partition agreed upon by all heirs.

RULING

Yes, the petition is dismissed for being moot and academic. The legal logic is grounded in the judicial principle that courts will not determine questions that no longer present a justiciable controversy or where no substantial relief can be granted. The central dispute arose from the administration of the estate under probate. However, the heirs subsequently reached a compromise agreement, which was formally approved by the trial court. This partition effectively distributed the estate properties, thereby terminating the period of administration and the need for an executor to manage the estate. The role and powers of the co-executor, which were the subject of the challenged orders, ceased to be relevant once the estate was partitioned and the administration was concluded by the compromise. Since the supervening event of the approved partition has resolved the underlying practical conflict, any ruling on the alleged grave abuse of discretion in the 1971 administrative order would be an academic exercise with no practical legal effect. The Court thus ordered the dismissal of the petition and the return of the case records to the trial court to fully implement the compromise partition.