Morada v. Caluag
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: J. M. Tuason Co., Inc. filed an action against Felix Morada to recover possession of a parcel of land, alleging that Morada unlawfully took possession of a portion thereof and constructed his house thereon. Morada claimed ownership, stating his wife acquired the land in 1946 from Roman Mendoza. Procedural History: Morada moved to suspend trial under Republic Acts 1162, 2342, and 2616, which was denied. He then moved for reconsideration, which was also denied. Subsequently, Morada sought leave to file a third-party complaint against Roman Mendoza, the alleged seller of the property to his wife. The respondent judge denied this motion, citing that the wife, not Morada, purchased the lot and she was not a party to the case, thus she alone had the right to enforce the warranty against eviction. The judge further clarified that the period for filing a third-party complaint for warranty against eviction had expired. The Petition: Morada filed a petition for mandamus with preliminary injunction to compel the respondent judge to allow the filing of the third-party complaint and to restrain the trial of the main case.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motion for leave to file a third-party complaint. Whether mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the respondent judge to allow the filing of a third-party complaint.
Ruling
The petition is denied, and the writ of preliminary injunction is dissolved.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of the third-party complaint: The Court held that the filing of a third-party complaint rests within the sound discretion of the court. In this case, the petitioner alleged in his answer that it was his wife, not himself, who purchased the property from Roman Mendoza. Therefore, the wife, not the petitioner, had the right to enforce the warranty against eviction against Mendoza. The Court noted that the proper procedure would have been for the wife to intervene in the action, and once admitted as an intervenor, she could have filed a third-party complaint against her alleged vendor. The respondent judge committed no error in denying the petitioner's motion. On the propriety of mandamus: The Court reiterated that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to control the discretion of a judge or to compel him to decide a motion in a particular way. For mandamus to lie, the petitioner must show a clear legal right to the performance of the act sought to be compelled. Since the petitioner failed to establish such a right, and the matter of allowing a third-party complaint is discretionary, mandamus was not the proper remedy.
Main Doctrine
The filing of a third-party complaint is a matter within the sound discretion of the court, and mandamus will not lie to control this discretion. Furthermore, a party seeking to enforce a warranty against eviction must have privity of contract with the vendor; if it was the spouse who purchased the property, the spouse must file the third-party complaint or intervene in the action.