Berenguer v. Arcangel
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the administration and eventual partition of the estate of the deceased Jose Martinez Berenguer. The testator died on November 1, 1965, leaving a widow and ten children, with properties primarily consisting of agricultural lands and commercial/residential buildings in Sorsogon. 2. Procedural History: The testator's Last Will and Testament was probated on January 17, 1966, appointing the widow, Dominga J. Vda. de Berenguer, and Jose Berenguer, Jr., as joint executors. Subsequent petitions led to the reinstatement of Jose Berenguer, Jr., as co-executor and the naming of heirs and their respective shares. A contentious order on March 29, 1971, restricted Jose Berenguer, Jr.'s role to that of an observer, which was later denied reconsideration. This led to the filing of the present petition for certiorari. Over time, numerous motions, contempt charges, and resolutions occurred, including the appointment and subsequent issues surrounding administrator Hermo Velasco, and various orders from both the Supreme Court and the lower court regarding the estate's administration and partition. Ultimately, a compromise partition was agreed upon by the heirs and approved by the trial court on September 13, 1979. 3. The Petition: The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction seeking to reverse and set aside the March 29, 1971, order of the respondent judge, which restricted the co-executor's management role, and the subsequent order denying reconsideration. They argued that the judge committed grave abuse of discretion or acted in excess of jurisdiction. The petition also questioned the undue delay in resolving a motion for reconsideration. The Supreme Court issued a preliminary injunction and later, after extensive proceedings and the eventual compromise partition, dismissed the petition as moot and academic, ordering the records returned to the trial court for full implementation of the partition.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion or acted in excess of or without jurisdiction in issuing the Orders of March 29, 1971, enjoining the petitioner co-executor from performing acts of administration and constituting him a mere "eye and ear," and of June 9, 1971, denying the motion for reconsideration. Whether the respondent judge unduly delayed the resolution of the petitioners' urgent motion for reconsideration of the Order of March 29, 1971.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is DISMISSED, and the records of the case are ordered RETURNED to the trial court to fully implement the compromise partition that has been agreed upon.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and excess of jurisdiction in issuing the Orders of March 29, 1971, and June 9, 1971: The Court noted that the parties eventually submitted a compromise partition of the properties forming the estate. This compromise partition was approved by the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon, Branch III, on September 13, 1979. The approval of this compromise agreement effectively resolved the disputes among the heirs regarding the administration and distribution of the estate. Consequently, the issues raised in the petition for certiorari, which pertained to the propriety of the respondent judge's orders concerning estate management, became moot and academic. The Court's subsequent actions, including the appointment of an administrator and the handling of contempt charges, were all part of the process leading to the final resolution of the estate's administration, which culminated in the compromise partition. The subsequent approval of the compromise partition rendered the original petition moot. On the issue of undue delay in the resolution of the motion for reconsideration: The Court's ultimate resolution of the case, which involved the dismissal of the petition due to mootness arising from the compromise agreement, rendered the issue of undue delay moot as well. The prolonged pendency of the case was a consequence of the complex estate administration and the eventual agreement reached by the parties. The fact that a compromise partition was eventually executed and approved by the trial court indicates that the underlying disputes were settled. Therefore, any alleged delay in resolving interlocutory matters became inconsequential in light of the final settlement of the estate through the compromise agreement. The Court's focus shifted to ensuring the proper implementation of the agreed partition.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari becomes moot and academic when the parties subsequently enter into a compromise agreement that resolves the issues raised, leading to the dismissal of the petition and the return of the records to the trial court for implementation.