UY
KIAO ENG vs. NIXON
LEE
G.R. No.
176831
January
15, 2010
FACTS
Alleging that his father’s holographic will is in the custody
of the petitioner Uy Kiao Eng (his mother), respondent Nixon Lee filed a
petition for mandamus with damages to compel petitioner to produce the will so
that probate proceedings for the allowance thereof could be instituted. In her
answer with counterclaim, petitioner moved that the same be dismissed for
failure to state a cause of action, for lack of cause of action and for
non-compliance with a condition precedent for the filing thereof.
Petitioner also denied having in her custody the original
holographic will and that she knew of its whereabouts. She also asserted that
photocopies of the will were given to respondent and to his siblings.
Petitioner further contended that respondent should have first exerted earnest
efforts to amicably settle the controversy with her before he filed the suit.
At the RTC level, the petitioner filed a demurrer contending that her son
failed to prove that she had in her custody the original holographic will. RTC
denied the demurrer to evidence. However, it granted the same on petitioner’s
MR. Respondent’s MR was denied. Hence petition for mandamus was dismissed.
Respondent sought review from the appellate court. CA denied
ruling that the writ of mandamus would issue only in instances when no other
remedy would be available and sufficient to afford redress. Also, the
respondent failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that his mother had
in her custody the original copy of the will. Respondent moved for reconsideration.
CA granted the motion and issued the writ and ordered the production of the
will. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. CA denied this motion.
Petitioner appealed to SC contending that the petition for mandamus is not the
proper remedy and that the testimonial evidence used by the appellate court as
basis for its ruling is inadmissible.
ISSUE
Whether or not the
petition for mandamus is the proper remedy.
RULING
No. The Court cannot sustain the issuance of the writ.
The
first paragraph of Section 3 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court pertinently
provides that— SEC. 3. Petition for mandamus.—When any tribunal, corporation,
board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which
the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or
station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right
or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby
may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with
certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent,
immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court, to do the act
required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the
damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the
respondent.
Mandamus is a command issuing from a court of law of
competent jurisdiction, in the name of the state or the sovereign, directed to
some inferior court, tribunal, or board, or to some corporation or person
requiring the performance of a particular duty therein specified, which duty
results from the official station of the party to whom the writ is directed or
from operation of law. This definition recognizes the public character of the
remedy, and clearly excludes the idea that it may be resorted to for the
purpose of enforcing the performance of duties in which the public has no
interest. The writ is a proper recourse for citizens who seek to enforce a
public right and to compel the performance of a public duty, most especially
when the public right involved is mandated by the Constitution. As the quoted
provision instructs, mandamus will lie if the tribunal, corporation, board,
officer, or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law
enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station.
The writ of mandamus, however, will not issue to compel an
official to do anything which is not his duty to do or which it is his duty not
to do, or to give to the applicant anything to which he is not entitled by law.
Nor will mandamus issue to enforce a right which is in substantial dispute or
as to which a substantial doubt exists, although objection raising a mere
technical question will be disregarded if the right is clear and the case is
meritorious. As a rule, mandamus will not lie in the absence of any of the
following grounds: [a] that the court, officer, board, or person against whom
the action is taken unlawfully neglected the performance of an act which the
law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from office, trust, or station; or
[b] that such court, officer, board, or person has unlawfully excluded
petitioner/relator from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which he
is entitled.
On the part of the relator, it is essential to the issuance
of a writ of mandamus that he should have a clear legal right to the thing
demanded and it must be the imperative duty of respondent to perform the act
required. The writ of mandamus, however, will not issue to compel an official
to do anything which is not his duty to do or which it is his duty not to do,
or to give to the applicant anything to which he is not entitled by law. Nor
will mandamus issue to enforce a right which is in substantial dispute or as to
which a substantial doubt exists, although objection raising a mere technical
question will be disregarded if the right is clear and the case is meritorious.
Recognized further in this jurisdiction is the principle that mandamus cannot
be used to enforce contractual obligations.
Generally, mandamus will not lie to enforce purely private
contract rights, and will not lie against an individual unless some obligation
in the nature of a public or quasi-public duty is imposed. The writ is not
appropriate to enforce a private right against an individual. The writ of
mandamus lies to enforce the execution of an act, when, otherwise, justice
would be obstructed; and, regularly, issues only in cases relating to the
public and to the government; hence, it is called a prerogative writ. To
preserve its prerogative character, mandamus is not used for the redress of
private wrongs, but only in matters relating to the public. Moreover, an
important principle followed in the issuance of the writ is that there should
be no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law other
than the remedy of mandamus being invoked. In the instant case, the Court,
without unnecessarily ascertaining whether the obligation involved here—the
production of the original holographic will—is in the nature of a public or a
private duty, rules that the remedy of mandamus cannot be availed of by
respondent Lee because there lies another plain, speedy and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law. Let it be noted that respondent has a photocopy of
the will and that he seeks the production of the original for purposes of
probate.
The Rules of Court, however, does not prevent him from instituting
probate proceedings for the allowance of the will whether the same is in his
possession or not. There being a plain, speedy and adequate remedies in the
ordinary course of law for the production of the subject will, the remedy of
mandamus cannot be availed of. Suffice it to state that respondent Lee lacks a
cause of action in his petition. Thus, the Court grants the demurrer.
No comments:
Post a Comment