Uy vs. Lee Case Digest G.R. No. 176831 ; January 15, 2010

Uy vs. Lee Case Digest 

G.R. No. 176831 ; January 15, 2010

PRINCIPLE/S:

Remedial Law

a) Writ of Mandamus

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.

b) Requisites for the Issuance of the Writ of Mandamus

1.         [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

Requisites for the Relator/Petitioner:

-should have a clear legal right to the thing demanded

- must be the imperative duty of respondent to perform the act required

3. No other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law other than the remedy of mandamus being invoked

c) Mandamus called a prerogative writ

- Mandamus is not used for the redress of private wrongs but only in matters relating to the public.

- Can only issue to enforce a public right and to compel the performance of a public duty

- Cannot be resorted to for the purpose of enforcing the performance of duties in which the public has no interest.

FACTS: Respondent Nixon Lee filed a petition for mandamus against his mother, petitioner Uy Kiao Eng, before the RTC to compel petitioner to produce the holographic will of his father so that probate proceedings for the allowance thereof could be instituted. 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. In her answer, 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.

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. The RTC, at first, denied the demurrer to evidence. However, it granted the same on petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Respondent’s motion for reconsideration of this latter order was denied. Hence, the petition was dismissed.

Respondent appealed to CA who initially denied the appeal for lack of merit. Respondent moved for reconsideration. The appellate court granted the motion, issued the writ of mandamus, and ordered the production of the will. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied.

Petitioner then filed this instant petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to SC 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.

ISSUE/S: WON mandamus is the proper remedy of the respondent.

HELD: NO.  Writ of Mandamus can only be issued if there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law other than the remedy of mandamus being invoked.

In the instant case, mandamus cannot be availed of by respondent Lee because there lies another plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law for the production of the subject will. Rule 76, Section 1 and Rule 75, Sections 2 to 5 provides the adequate remedy that respondent Lee can avail. Rule 76, Section 1 provides that petition for allowance of will can still proceed regardless of whether or not petitioner has the will in his possession. Rule 75, Sections 2 to 5 provides the remedy for the production of the original holographic.