04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly there has been a governmental act accomplished or performed that has a direct adverse effect on the legal right of the person contesting its validity.[14] In the case of PACU vs. Secretary of Education[15] the petition contesting the validity of a regulation issued by the Secretary of Education requiring private schools to secure a permit to operate was dismissed on the ground that all the petitioners have permits and are actually operating under the same. The petitioners questioned the regulation because of the possibility that the permit might be denied them in the future. This Court held that there was no justiciable controversy because the petitioners suffered no wrong by the implementation of the questioned regulation and therefore, they are not entitled to relief. A mere apprehension that the Secretary of Education will withdraw the permit does not amount to a justiciable controversy. The questioned regulation in the PACU case may be questioned by a private school whose permit to operate has been revoked or one whose application therefor has been denied.[16] This Court cannot rule on the basis of petitioners' speculation that the DENR will approve the application of the heirs of Carantes. There must be an actual governmental act which directly causes or will imminently cause injury to the alleged legal right of the petitioner to possess the land before the jurisdiction of this Court may be invoked. There is no showing that the petitioners were being evicted from the land by the heirs of Carantes under orders from the DENR. The petitioners' allegation that certain documents from the DENR were shown to them by the heirs of Carantes to justify eviction is vague, and it would appear that the petitioners did not verify if indeed the respondent DENR or its officers authorized the attempted eviction. Suffice it to say that by the petitioners own admission that the respondents are still processing and have not approved the application of the heirs of Carantes, the petitioners alleged right to possess the land is not violated nor is in imminent danger of being violated, as the DENR may or may not approve Carantes' application. Until such time, the petitioners are simply speculating that they might be evicted from the premises at some future time. Borrowing from the pronouncements of this Court in the PACU case, "They (the petitioners) have suffered no wrong under the terms of the law--and, naturally need no relief in the form they now seek to obtain."[17] If indeed the heirs of Carantes are trying to enter the land and disturbing the petitioners possession thereof even without prior approval by the DENR of the claim of the heirs of Carantes, the case is simply one for forcible entry. WHEREFORE, for lack of justiciable controversy, the decision of the appellate court is hereby set aside. SO ORDERED. Melo, Vitug, Panganiban, and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur. [1] Subsequently amended by 31-A and 31-B. [2] Special Order no. 31, as amended, series of 1990 states: "In the interest of the service and consistent with the Constitutional mandate for the recognition and protection of the rights of the indigenous elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/50008 4/7