BACNOTAN CEMENT INDUSTRIES, INC., AND RAFAEL GALVEZ, PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. FELICIANO BELMONTE AND HON. JOSE P. FLORES, IN THEIR CAPACI…

This suit for certiorari to review a decision of the Court
of Appeals filed by petitioner Bacnotan Cement
Industries, Inc. as lessee of the co-petitioner, Rafael Galvez,
had its origin in the issuance of a preliminary and mandatory injunction issued
by the then respondent Judge Jose P. Flores “enjoining Rafael Galvez or his assign, the Bacnotan
Cement Factories or its representatives, from removing and/or demolishing the
fence or any part thereof on the property mentioned in the petition, owned and
put up by the United States Government and to restore whatever part of the
fence removed by them in order to place the said fence in its original
condition, and to desist from
performing any act or acts that shall cause damage or prejudice upon the
property mentioned in the petition during the pendency
of these proceedings.”^[1] Thereafter,
a motion to dissolve such writ of preliminary preventive and mandatory
injunction was filed by such petitioners but denied by the successor of Judge
Flores, respondent Judge Feliciano Belmonte, at
present likewise retired.  In view
thereof, petitioners elevated the matter to respondent Court of Appeals, which
in the decision sought to be reviewed, dismissed their petition for certiorari.  Hence the present proceeding before this
Court.

The briefs were duly filed, and counsel for petitioner Bacnotan Cement Industries, Inc. was given two extensions
to file a reply brief.  There being a
failure to submit the same, this Court on February 28, 1979 issued the
following resolution: “Considering the length of time that had elapsed
from the filing of this petition for the review of a decision of the Court of
Appeals which assailed its correctness on the ground that the issuance of a
preliminary injunction by the then respondent Judges Feliciano Belmonte and Jose P. Flores was in excess of jurisdiction and with grave
abuse of discretion, the parties are required to inform the Court within thirty
(30) days from receipt of further developments to enable it to ascertain
whether the matter involved has become moot and academic.”^[2] On March 23, 1979, counsel for Bacnotan Cement Industries, Inc. submitted the following
Manifestation: “[Comes now] the undersigned counsel and before this Honorable
Tribunal respectfully manifests that they have forwarded to the
Petitioner-Corporation the copy of the Resolution dated February 28, 1979, immediately upon receipt
thereof, since they are no longer the legal counsel of said corporation.”^[3]
Respondents, represented by the Solicitor General after obtaining four
extensions, submitted on June 22, 1979
the following Manifestation and Motion, which insofar pertinent, reads as
follows: “2.  The petition for certiorari
in the Court of Appeals assailed the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction in Land Registration Case No. N-361, Court of First Instance of La
Union, on the ground that the same was issued in excess of jurisdiction and with grave
abuse of discretion.  3.  The aforesaid preliminary injunction was
issued after the Republic of the Philippines
filed in Land Registration Case No.  N-361
a motion dated July 30, 1962
for the cancellation of Original Certificate of Title No. 0-361 in the name of
Rafael Galvez. 
That motion stemmed from a finding that the parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 0-361 in
the name of Rafael Galvez and leased by him to
herein petitioner is within the limits of Camp
Wallace Military Reservation and was registered as early as 1906 in
favor of the United States Government. 
The preliminary injunction commanded petitioner Bacnotan
Cement to restore a fence which it had earlier removed from the aforementioned
parcel of land.  4.  During the pendency
of the aforesaid petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, the
Court of First Instance of La Union, in an order dated February 1, 1963, ruled
that the proceedings in Land Registration Case No. N-361, as well as Original
Certificate of Title No. 0-381 in the name of Rafael Galvez
issued by virtue of the decree of registration dated August 8, 1958 issued in said case, were null and
void.  In the same order, the Register of
Deeds of La Union was ordered to cancel Original Certificate of Title No. 0-381
and/or such other certificates of title as might have been issued subsequent
thereto having reference to the
same parcel of land.  * * * 5.  Rafael Galvez and intervenor Bacnotan Cement
appealed the order dated January 25,
1965 to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed in its decision dated August 14, 1973 the appealed order,
finding the same to be in accordance with law and the evidence presented.  6.  On April 4, 1974, Assistant Provincial
Fiscal Romeo O. Nebriaga filed a motion for execution
of judgment with the court a quo. 
Finding the motion to be meritorious, the court granted the Fiscal’s motion in an order dated April 22, 1974. 
The court took into consideration the fact that the order dated January 25, 1965 had become final and
executory. 
Thus, pursuant to the April 22, 1974 order of the Court of First
Instance of La Union, together with the orders dated February 1, 1963 and
January 25, 1965, including the decision of the Court of Appeals dated August
14, 1973, a writ of execution was issued, ordering the Provincial Sheriff of La
Union, or his deputy, to execute the dispositive
portions of the orders and decision quoted in the writ of execution.  7.  It
clearly appears therefore that the resolution of the petition in the case at
bar, which merely involves the incident on the preliminary injunction issued in
Land Registration Case No. N-361, would serve no useful purpose since in its
decision on the merits, the trial court has declared O.C. T. No. 0-381 null and
void and that decision is now final and executory.  [Wherefore], it is most respectfully
prayed that the instant petition be dismissed for having become moot and
academic.”^[4]

From the above, it is manifest that this suit is moot and
academic.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari to review a
decision of respondent Court of Appeals is dismissed for being moot and
academic.  No costs.

Barredo, Antonio, Aquino,
and Concepcion,
Jr., JJ., concur.

Santos and Abad Santos,
JJ., on official leave.

^[1]
Decision, 4.

^[2]
Resolution dated February 28, 1979.

^[3]
Manifestation dated March 23, 1979.

^[4]
Manifestation and Motion, 2-5.