G.R. No. L-46459. January 31, 1979.
Walter Balasabas, petitioner, vs. Hon. Cipriano Vamenta, Jr., as Presiding Judge, Branch 111, CFI of Negros Oriental; Genoveva Gonzales, Alicia Gonzales, Ignacio Gonzales, Elvira Gonzales, and Adelaida Gonzales, married to Arnulfo Umbac, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Walter Balasabas filed this petition for certiorari seeking to annul two orders issued by respondent Judge Cipriano Vamenta, Jr. in Civil Case No. 6469 for Specific Performance with Preliminary Mandatory Injunction. The first order, dated March 25, 1977, granted a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, compelling Balasabas to restore possession of a disputed land to the private respondents (the Gonzaleses), restraining him from harvesting sugarcane and further acts of dispossession, conditioned upon a bond. The second order, dated May 19, 1977, denied Balasabas’s motion for reconsideration. Balasabas alleged grave abuse of discretion by the trial court and the lack of an adequate remedy.
During the pendency of this Supreme Court petition, the private respondents filed a formal Manifestation in the court of origin on October 20, 1977. They declared that, despite the court’s order, they had not taken and did not intend to take physical possession of the land, having abandoned plans to cultivate it due to adverse economic conditions in the sugar industry. They expressly stated they had no objection to Balasabas taking possession for cultivation pending the main case. Petitioner, however, insisted the petition be resolved, fearing respondents might later take an inconsistent position.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for certiorari assailing the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction has been rendered moot and academic by the subsequent manifestation of the private respondents.

RULING

Yes, the petition is moot and academic. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition on this ground. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that courts will not determine cases where no actual controversy exists or where the issues have ceased to be justiciable. The private respondents’ unequivocal manifestation—formally filed in the trial court—that they did not intend to enforce the writ and had no objection to the petitioner’s possession fundamentally altered the situation. This manifestation removed the core conflict that gave rise to the interlocutory challenge. The injunction order sought to restore respondents to possession, but they expressly waived that right for the pendency of the case.
Consequently, the specific grievance against the injunction order lost its practical legal significance, rendering the petition for certiorari a non-contentious issue. The Court directed the respondent Judge, if he had not already done so, to set aside the challenged orders and the writ based on this supervening event. The proper course is for the trial court to proceed to adjudicate the main action on its merits. The petitioner’s fear of a future inconsistent stand by respondents is speculative and does not preserve a live case or controversy necessary for judicial review. The dismissal on mootness grounds avoids an advisory opinion on an abstract question.