UY KIAO ENG, PETITIONER, VS. NIXON LEE, RESPONDENT.

Uy Kiao Eng versus Nixon Lee

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Uy Kiao Eng against her own son, Nixon Lee, to challenge the appellate court's grant of the extraordinary writ of mandamus. The son had sued his mother to compel her to produce the original of his deceased father's holographic will, so that he could then institute probate proceedings. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's clean statement that mandamus is a prerogative writ of public character, not a device for the redress of private wrongs, and that it will not issue where the Rules of Court already supply a plain, speedy and adequate remedy for the very act demanded.

Procedural History

Nixon Lee filed a petition for mandamus with damages before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, seeking to compel his mother to produce the holographic will of his late father. Uy Kiao Eng answered with a counterclaim, insisting that the petition be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action, for lack of cause of action, and for non-compliance with a condition precedent, and denying that she had custody of the original will. After the son rested his evidence, the mother filed a demurrer to evidence. The trial court at first denied the demurrer, but on reconsideration it granted the same and dismissed the petition; it likewise denied the son's motion for reconsideration.

Aggrieved, the son elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court initially denied the appeal for lack of merit, holding that mandamus would issue only where no other remedy was available and sufficient, that the son could instead ask for the production and probate of the will in a settlement proceeding under Rule 76, and that he had failed to prove that his mother had custody of the original. On the son's motion for reconsideration, however, the appellate court reversed itself in an amended decision, issued the writ, ordered the production of the will, and awarded attorney's fees, ruling that testimonial evidence had shown the mother's possession of the will. The mother's motion for reconsideration was denied. She then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari, arguing that mandamus was not the proper remedy and that the testimonial evidence relied upon was inadmissible.

Facts

Nixon Lee alleged that his father died in Manila on June 22, 1992, leaving a holographic will then in the custody of his mother, Uy Kiao Eng. On May 28, 2001, the son filed a petition for mandamus with damages before the Regional Trial Court of Manila to compel his mother to produce the will so that probate proceedings for its allowance could be instituted. He claimed that he had already asked her to settle and liquidate the patriarch's estate and to deliver to the legal heirs their respective inheritance, but that she refused without any justifiable reason.

In her answer with counterclaim, the mother denied that she was in custody of the original holographic will or that she knew of its whereabouts. She asserted that photocopies of the will had been given to the son and to his siblings, and that the son had in fact been able to introduce a copy of the will as an exhibit in a separate case before the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City. She further contended that the son should first have exerted earnest efforts to amicably settle the controversy with her before filing suit.

After the son presented and formally offered his evidence, the mother demurred, contending that he had failed to prove that she had custody of the original will, and that the documentary evidence offered was hearsay, immaterial, and irrelevant, since it did not prove or disprove the unlawful neglect of a duty enjoined by law that mandamus requires. The trial court ultimately granted the demurrer and dismissed the petition, and the case travelled upward on the sole question of whether the writ should issue.

Issues

• Whether or not the remedy of mandamus is the proper recourse to compel the production of the original holographic will.
• Whether or not the respondent has a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law for the production and probate of the will.
• Whether or not the petition states a cause of action, such that the demurrer to evidence was correctly granted.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, first paragraph, defines when the writ of mandamus may issue:

Section 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.

This is the very provision the son invoked, and its last condition, the absence of any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy, is what defeats him.

Section 1 of Rule 76 of the Rules of Court identifies who may seek the allowance of a will:

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.

This provision shows that the son need not possess the original will in order to commence probate, and thus supplies the adequate remedy that mandamus cannot displace.

Sections 2 to 5 of Rule 75 of the Rules of Court provide the mechanism for the production of a will in the custody of another:

Section 2. Custodian of will to deliver. The person who has custody of a will shall, within twenty 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.

Section 3. Executor to present will and accept or refuse trust. A person named as executor in a will shall within twenty days after he knows of the death of the testator, or within twenty 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.

Section 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.

Section 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.

These provisions give the son a complete and specific procedure, complete with fine and imprisonment for a recalcitrant custodian, which is precisely the plain, speedy and adequate remedy that forecloses mandamus.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that mandamus is not the proper remedy. It defined the writ as a command issuing from a court of competent jurisdiction, in the name of the state or the sovereign, directed to an inferior court, tribunal, board, corporation, or person, requiring the performance of a particular duty specified therein, which duty results from the official station of the party to whom the writ is directed or from operation of law. That definition, the Court stressed, recognizes the public character of the remedy and 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 Court recalled that mandamus will not issue to enforce a right which is in substantial dispute, that the relator must have a clear legal right to the thing demanded, and that it must be the imperative duty of the respondent to perform the act required. It added that mandamus cannot be used to enforce contractual obligations, will not lie to enforce purely private contract rights, and is not appropriate to enforce a private right against an individual; to preserve its prerogative character, mandamus is not used for the redress of private wrongs, but only in matters relating to the public.

On the second issue, the Court ruled that even without unnecessarily ascertaining whether the obligation to produce the original holographic will is public or private in nature, the remedy of mandamus cannot be availed of because there lies another plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The Court noted that the son has a photocopy of the will and seeks the original only for purposes of probate, and that the Rules of Court do not prevent him from instituting probate proceedings for the allowance of the will whether the same is in his possession or not. It pointed to Section 1 of Rule 76, which allows any person interested in the estate to petition for the allowance of the will whether it be in his possession or not, or is lost or destroyed, and to Sections 2 to 5 of Rule 75, which supply the procedure for the production of the original, including the fine and the commitment to prison for a custodian who neglects to deliver. Mandamus, the Court reminded, can issue only in cases where the usual modes of procedure and forms of remedy are powerless to afford relief, and its grant lies in the sound discretion of the court.

On the third issue, the Court concluded that with a plain, speedy and adequate remedy available, the son lacks a cause of action in his petition, and it accordingly granted the demurrer to evidence.

Doctrine

Mandamus is a prerogative writ of public character. It issues only to compel the performance of a duty enjoined by law as resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to restrain an unlawful exclusion from a right or office, and only where there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. It will not issue to enforce a private right against an individual, to enforce contractual obligations, or to enforce a right that is in substantial dispute; the relator must have a clear legal right to the thing demanded, and it must be the imperative duty of the respondent to perform the act required.

Applied to succession, the rule is that a person interested in an estate may petition for the allowance of a will whether the same be in his possession or not, or is lost or destroyed, under Section 1 of Rule 76; and the production of a will held by another is secured not by mandamus but by the specific machinery of Sections 2 to 5 of Rule 75, which impose on the custodian the duty to deliver within twenty days of knowledge of the testator's death, punish neglect with a fine not exceeding two thousand pesos, and authorize commitment to prison until the will is delivered. Because that remedy is plain, speedy and adequate, mandamus is barred, and a petition that ignores it fails to state a cause of action.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the amended decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, and dismissed the civil case for mandamus filed by Nixon Lee against his mother.

Remember This

Memorize the line that mandamus is a prerogative writ that will not be used for the redress of private wrongs, and will not issue where the Rules of Court provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy, as Rule 76 and Rule 75 do for the probate and production of a will. Examiners like to use this case to test the requisites of mandamus, the public character of the writ, and the rule that a demurrer to evidence is correctly granted where the petition states no cause of action.