UY KIAO ENG v.

NIXON LEE testimonial evidence that his mother had in her possession the
Jan. 15, 2010 | J., Nachura | Mandamus holographic will. Petitioner appealed to the SC.
DIGEST MADE BY: Sienna
CLUE: holographic will WON Mandamus can be availed of in this case? NO

PETITIONER: Uy Kiao Eng 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
RESPONDENTS: Nixon Lee
DOCTRINE: of law other than the remedy of mandamus being invoked. 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.
The writ of mandamus would issue only in instances when no other
remedy would be available and sufficient to afford redress.
In the instant case, the Court ruled that the remedy of mandamus
cannot be availed of by respondent Lee because there lies another plain,
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 speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Let it be
of law other than the remedy of mandamus being invoked. noted that respondent has a photocopy of the will and that he seeks
the production of the original for purposes of probate.
RECIT- READY SUMMARY:
The Rules of Court does not prevent him from instituting probate
Alleging that his father passed away and left a holographic will, which proceedings for the allowance of the will whether the same is in his
is now in the custody of petitioner Uy Kiao Eng, his mother, respondent possession or not. Under Rule 76, in an action for the settlement of the
Nixon Lee filed, a petition for mandamus with damages, before the estate of his deceased father, respondent could ask for the presentation
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, to compel petitioner to produce or production and for the approval or probate of the holographic will.
the will so that probate proceedings for the allowance thereof could be
instituted. FACTS:

Petitioner denied that she was in custody of the original holographic will 1. Alleging that his father passed away on June 22, 1992 in Manila
and that she knew of its whereabouts. She, moreover, asserted that and left a holographic will, which is now in the custody of
photocopies of the will were given to respondent and to his siblings. petitioner Uy Kiao Eng, his mother, respondent Nixon Lee filed
Petitioner further contended that respondent should have first exerted a petition for mandamus with damages, before the Regional
earnest efforts to amicably settle the controversy with her before he Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, to compel petitioner to produce the
filed the suit. will so that probate proceedings for the allowance thereof could
be instituted. Allegedly, respondent had already requested his
The RTC heard the case. After the presentation and formal offer of mother to settle and liquidate the patriarch's estate and to
respondent's evidence, petitioner demurred, contending that her son deliver to the legal heirs their respective inheritance, but
failed to prove that she had in her custody the original holographic will. petitioner refused to do so without any justifiable reason.
RTC granted the demurrer. Upon appeal to the CA, the CA issued the 2. In her answer with counterclaim, petitioner traversed the
writ, and ordered the production of the will and the payment of allegations in the complaint and posited that the same be
attorney's fees. It ruled this time that respondent was able to show by 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 ISSUE/S:
of the original holographic will and that she knew of its 1. WON Mandamus can be availed of— NO
whereabouts. She, moreover, asserted that photocopies of the
will were given to respondent and to his siblings. As a matter RULING:
of fact, respondent was able to introduce, as an exhibit, a copy
of the will in a case before the RTC of Valenzuela City. Petitioner WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review on certiorari
further contended that respondent should have first exerted is GRANTED.
earnest efforts to amicably settle the controversy with her
before he filed the suit. RATIO:
3. The RTC heard the case. After the presentation and formal offer 1. NO
of respondent's evidence, petitioner demurred, contending that
her son failed to prove that she had in her custody the original ● The Court cannot sustain the CA's issuance of the writ.
holographic will. Importantly, she asserted that the pieces of ● The first paragraph of Section 3 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
documentary evidence presented, aside from being hearsay, pertinently provides that —
were all immaterial and irrelevant to the issue involved in the SEC. 3. Petition for mandamus. — When any tribunal,
petition — they did not prove or disprove that she unlawfully corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the
neglected the performance of an act which the law specifically performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a
enjoined as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station, for duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully
the court to issue the writ of mandamus. excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or
4. The RTC, at first, denied the demurrer to evidence. However, it office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other
granted the same on petitioner's motion for reconsideration. plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
Respondent's motion for reconsideration of this latter order was course of law, xx
denied. Hence, the petition was dismissed. ● Mandamus is a command issuing from a court of law of
5. Aggrieved, respondent sought review from the appellate court. competent jurisdiction, in the name of the state or the
The CA initially denied the appeal for lack of merit. It ruled that sovereign, directed to some inferior court, tribunal, or board, or
the writ of mandamus would issue only in instances when no to some corporation or person requiring the performance of a
other remedy would be available and sufficient to afford particular duty therein specified, which duty results from the
redress. Under Rule 76, in an action for the settlement of the official station of the party to whom the writ is directed or from
estate of his deceased father, respondent could ask for the operation of law.
presentation or production and for the approval or probate of ● This definition recognizes the public character of the remedy,
the holographic will. The CA further ruled that respondent, in and clearly excludes the idea that it may be resorted to for the
the proceedings before the trial court, failed to present purpose of enforcing the performance of duties in which the
sufficient evidence to prove that his mother had in her custody public has no interest.
the original copy of the will. ● The writ is a proper recourse for citizens who seek to enforce a
6. Dissatisfied with this turn of events, petitioner filed a motion for public right and to compel the performance of a public duty,
reconsideration. The appellate court denied this motion, hence most especially when the public right involved is mandated by
this petition before the SC. the Constitution. As the quoted provision instructs, mandamus
 will lie if the tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person remedy of mandamus being invoked. In other words,
unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law mandamus can be issued only in cases where the usual modes
enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station. of procedure and forms of remedy are powerless to afford relief.
● The writ of mandamus, however, will not issue to compel an Although classified as a legal remedy, mandamus is equitable
official to do anything which is not his duty to do or which it is in its nature and its issuance is generally controlled by equitable
his duty not to do, or to give to the applicant anything to which principles. Indeed, the grant of the writ of mandamus lies in the
he is not entitled by law. Nor will mandamus issue to enforce sound discretion of the court.
a right which is in substantial dispute or as to which a ● In the instant case, the Court, without unnecessarily
substantial doubt exists, although objection raising a mere ascertaining whether the obligation involved here — the
technical question will be disregarded if the right is clear and production of the original holographic will — is in the nature of
the case is meritorious. a public or a private duty, rules that the remedy of
● As a rule, mandamus will not lie in the absence of any of mandamus cannot be availed of by respondent Lee
the following grounds: because there lies another plain, speedy and adequate
[a] that the court, officer, board, or person against whom remedy in the ordinary course of law.
the action is taken unlawfully neglected the performance of ● Let it be noted that respondent has a photocopy of the will and
an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting that he seeks the production of the original for purposes of
from office, trust, or station; or probate. The Rules of Court, however, does not prevent him
[b] that such court, officer, board, or person has unlawfully from instituting probate proceedings for the allowance of the
excluded petitioner/relator from the use and enjoyment of will whether the same is in his possession or not.
a right or office to which he is entitled. ● Rule 76, Section 1 relevantly provides:
● On the part of the relator, it is essential to the issuance of a Section 1. Who may petition for the allowance of will. — Any
writ of mandamus that he should have a clear legal right to executor, devisee, or legatee named in a will, or any other
the thing demanded and it must be the imperative duty of person interested in the estate, may, at any time, after the
respondent to perform the act required. death of the testator, petition the court having jurisdiction
● Generally, mandamus will not lie to enforce purely private to have the will allowed, whether the same be in his
contract rights, and will not lie against an individual unless possession or not, or is lost or destroyed.
some obligation in the nature of a public or quasi-public duty is ● An adequate remedy is further provided by Rule 75, Sections
imposed. The writ is not appropriate to enforce a private right 2 to 5, for the production of the original holographic will.
against an individual. ● There being a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
● The writ of mandamus lies to enforce the execution of an act, ordinary course of law for the production of the subject will, the
when, otherwise, justice would be obstructed; and, regularly, remedy of mandamus cannot be availed of. Suffice it to state
issues only in cases relating to the public and to the that respondent Lee lacks a cause of action in his petition. Thus,
government; hence, it is called a prerogative writ. To preserve the Court grants the demurrer.
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