THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 176831
January 15, 2010
UY KIAO ENG, Petitioner,
vs.
NIXON LEE, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
NACHURA, J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the August 23, 2006 Amended
Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 91725 and the February
23, 2007 Resolution,2 denying the motion for reconsideration thereof.
The relevant facts and proceedings follow.
Alleging that his father passed away on June 22, 1992 in
Manila and left a holographic will, which is now in the custody of petitioner
Uy Kiao Eng, his mother, respondent Nixon Lee filed, on May 28, 2001, a
petition for mandamus with damages, docketed as Civil Case No. 01100939, before
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, to compel petitioner to produce the
will so that probate proceedings for the allowance thereof could be instituted.
Allegedly, respondent had already requested his mother to settle and liquidate
the patriarch’s estate and to deliver to the legal heirs their respective
inheritance, but petitioner refused to do so without any justifiable reason.3
In her answer with counterclaim, petitioner traversed the
allegations in the complaint and posited 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 denied that she
was in custody of the original holographic will and that she knew of its
whereabouts. She, moreover, asserted that photocopies of the will were given to
respondent and to his siblings. As a matter of fact, respondent was able to
introduce, as an exhibit, a copy of the will in Civil Case No. 224-V-00 before
the RTC of Valenzuela City. Petitioner further contended that respondent should
have first exerted earnest efforts to amicably settle the controversy with her
before he filed the suit.4
The RTC heard the case. After the presentation and formal
offer of respondent’s evidence, petitioner demurred, contending that her son
failed to prove that she had in her custody the original holographic will.
Importantly, she asserted that the pieces of documentary evidence presented,
aside from being hearsay, were all immaterial and irrelevant to the issue
involved in the petition—they did not prove or disprove that she unlawfully
neglected the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoined as a
duty resulting from an office, trust or station, for the court to issue the
writ of mandamus.5
The RTC, at first, denied the demurrer to evidence.6 In its
February 4, 2005 Order,7 however, it granted the same on petitioner’s motion
for reconsideration. Respondent’s motion for reconsideration of this latter
order was denied on September 20, 2005.8 Hence, the petition was dismissed.
Aggrieved, respondent sought review from the appellate
court. On April 26, 2006, the CA initially denied the appeal for lack of merit.
It ruled that the writ of mandamus would issue only in instances when no other
remedy would be available and sufficient to afford redress. Under Rule 76, in
an action for the settlement of the estate of his deceased father, respondent
could ask for the presentation or production and for the approval or probate of
the holographic will. The CA further ruled that respondent, in the proceedings
before the trial court, failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that his
mother had in her custody the original copy of the will.91avvphi1
Respondent moved for reconsideration. The appellate court,
in the assailed August 23, 2006 Amended Decision,10 granted the motion, set
aside its earlier ruling, issued the writ, and ordered the production of the will
and the payment of attorney’s fees. It ruled this time that respondent was able
to show by testimonial evidence that his mother had in her possession the
holographic will.
Dissatisfied with this turn of events, petitioner filed a
motion for reconsideration. The appellate court denied this motion in the
further assailed February 23, 2007 Resolution.11
Left with no other recourse, petitioner brought the matter
before this Court, contending in the main 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.12
The Court cannot sustain the CA’s 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.13
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.14 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.15 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.16 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.17
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.18 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.19 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.20 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.21
Recognized further in this jurisdiction is the principle
that mandamus cannot be used to enforce contractual obligations.22 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.23 The writ is not appropriate to enforce a
private right against an individual.24 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.25 To preserve its prerogative
character, mandamus is not used for the redress of private wrongs, but only in
matters relating to the public.26
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.27 In
other words, mandamus can be issued only in cases where the usual modes of
procedure and forms of remedy are powerless to afford relief.28 Although
classified as a legal remedy, mandamus is equitable in its nature and its
issuance is generally controlled by equitable principles.29 Indeed, the grant
of the writ of mandamus lies in the sound discretion of the court.
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. Rule
76, Section 1 relevantly provides:
Section 1. Who may petition for the allowance of will.—Any
executor, devisee, or legatee named in a will, or any other person interested
in the estate, may, at any time, after the death of the testator, petition the
court having jurisdiction to have the will allowed, whether the same be in his
possession or not, or is lost or destroyed.
An adequate remedy is further provided by Rule 75, Sections
2 to 5, for the production of the original holographic will. Thus—
SEC. 2. Custodian of will to deliver.—The person who has
custody of a will shall, within twenty (20) days after he knows of the death of
the testator, deliver the will to the court having jurisdiction, or to the
executor named in the will.
SEC. 3. Executor to present will and accept or refuse
trust.—A person named as executor in a will shall within twenty (20) days after
he knows of the death of the testator, or within twenty (20) days after he
knows that he is named executor if he obtained such knowledge after the death
of the testator, present such will to the court having jurisdiction, unless the
will has reached the court in any other manner, and shall, within such period,
signify to the court in writing his acceptance of the trust or his refusal to
accept it.
SEC. 4. Custodian and executor subject to fine for
neglect.—A person who neglects any of the duties required in the two last
preceding sections without excuse satisfactory to the court shall be fined not
exceeding two thousand pesos.
SEC. 5. Person retaining will may be committed.—A person
having custody of a will after the death of the testator who neglects without
reasonable cause to deliver the same, when ordered so to do, to the court
having jurisdiction, may be committed to prison and there kept until he
delivers the will.30
There being a plain, speedy and adequate remedy 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.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review on
certiorari is GRANTED. The August 23, 2006 Amended Decision and the February
23, 2007 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 91725 are
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Civil Case No. 01100939 before the Regional Trial Court
of Manila is DISMISSED.