WALTER BALASABAS, PETITIONER, VS. HON. CIPRIANO VAMENTA, JR., AS PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH III, CFI OF NEGROS ORIENTAL; GENOVEVA GONZALES, ALICIA GONZALES, IGNACIO GONZALES, ELVIR…

By this petition for certiorari filed on July 11, 1977,
petitioner seeks to set aside the orders of respondent Judge Cipriano Vamenta Jr. of Negros Occidental – (1) dated March 25, 1977, granting a
Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction, ordering herein petitioner to restore
to private respondents the possession of the land in question and to maintain
the status quo; restraining petitioner from harvesting and milling sugarcane,
and from further committing acts of dispossession, upon respondents filing a
bond in the sum of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000); and (2) the order of May 19,
1977, which denied herein petitioners’ “Motion for Reconsideration”
of the said order – which were issued in Civil Case No. 6469 for Specific
Performance With Preliminary Mandatory Injunction, entitled “Genoveva Gonzales, et al vs. Walter Balasabas,
et al.,” on the grounds that respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of
discretion and there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy
available to petitioner (Rollo, pp. 2-17).

On July 21,
1977, We resolved, without giving due course to petition, to
require respondents to file their comments. 
Private respondents filed their comment, after extension, on September
12, 1977; respondent
Judge reiterated the reasons and grounds stated in his Order sought to be set
aside and adopted the comments of private respondent as his own (Rollo, pp. 78-87).

On January 18, 1978 after
pleadings have been filed – including the parties’ respective memoranda –
private respondents, thru counsel, manifested that on October 20, 1977,
they filed a Manifestation before respondent court to the effect that in spite
of the Order dated March 25, 1977 subject of the petition respondents . . . “have not actually
taken possession of the land in question and do not intend to do so” . . .
“that they . . . have no objection to petitioner’s taking possession of
the property in question”; and “. . . there is no more legal obstacle
in petitioner’s taking possession of the land in question to enable him to
cultivate it during the pendency of the main case in
the court a quo.” (Rollo,
pp. 101-103.)

The said Manifestation
filed in the Court a quo, in extenso,
follows:

x x x

“Plaintiffs, by counsel, respectfully manifest that although
per Order of this Honorable Court dated March 25, 1977, defendants have been
ordered, among others, to restore plaintiffs to the possession of the land in
question the latter have not actually taken physical possession of the same and
do not intend to do so, considering that they have abandoned plans of cultivating
the area for sugarcane purposes in view of adverse economic conditions
affecting the sugar industry.  This
manifestation is made to inform this Honorable Court and defendants that
plaintiff would have no objection to defendants’ taking possession of the
property in question, the aforesaid Order of the Court notwithstanding.”
(Emphasis supplied; Rollo, p. 104).

Petitioner,
however, insists that the issues raised in the petition “. . . regardless
of the non-interest of the respondents to occupy the land in question . .
.” should be resolved because private respondents may take “again
another inconsistent stand between now and the time this petition is
restored.” (Rollo, p. 106;
Petitioner’s Memorandum With Reply to Memorandum of Respondents).

This petition should be dismissed.  For with the foregoing manifestation formally
filed in the Court a quo this petition to set aside the order of March 25, 1977 has become moot and
academic.  Respondent Judge, on the
strength of the same, should have set aside the said order and the “Writ
of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction” issued on 29 March 1977, and if he has not done so, is
hereby directed to do so, and proceed with the determination of the merits of
the case filed with his Court.  This
petition has ceased to be a contentious interlocutory incident in the main
action before respondent Judge.

WHEREFORE, the Court resolved to dismiss, as it hereby
DISMISSES, this petition is moot and academic.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, (Chairman), Barredo,
Antonio, Aquino, and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concur.