Enriquez v. Macadaeg
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Meliton Yburan filed a civil action (Civil Case No. R-552) against Marcelo Enriquez and the Philippine National Bank in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. The complaint alleged that Yburan bought a piece of real property in an execution sale, but the judgment debtor (Enriquez) subsequently mortgaged it to the Philippine National Bank and refused to surrender possession. Yburan sought to be declared owner and to be placed in possession of the property. Procedural History: Before filing an answer, the defendants, Enriquez and the Philippine National Bank, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Their primary ground was that the venue was improperly laid, as the action concerned the title to and possession of real estate situated in Negros Oriental, not Cebu. The Petition: Respondent Judge Higinio B. Macadaeg denied the motion to dismiss. Consequently, the defendants filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Supreme Court, seeking to compel the respondent judge to dismiss the civil action. They argued that the judge committed a manifest error in denying their motion to dismiss, which was based on the improper venue according to the Rules of Court.
Issue(s)
Whether mandamus is the proper remedy to compel a judge to dismiss a civil action where venue was allegedly improperly laid. Whether the Court of First Instance of Cebu has jurisdiction over an action concerning title to and possession of real property located in Negros Oriental.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition but ordered the issuance of a writ of prohibition, not mandamus. The Court ruled that while the respondent judge committed a manifest error in denying the motion to dismiss, mandamus was not the proper remedy. Instead, prohibition was the appropriate writ to prevent the judge from proceeding with the case, as he was acting in defiance of the Rules of Court by refusing to dismiss an action improperly brought before his court. The Court directed the respondent judge or his successor to dismiss the case unless it was to be dismissed by him.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that while the respondent judge committed a manifest error in denying the motion to dismiss based on improper venue, mandamus was not the proper remedy. Mandamus is available to compel the performance of a ministerial duty or to correct an unlawful exclusion from a right, neither of which applied here. Instead, the judge was proceeding in defiance of the Rules of Court by refusing to dismiss an action that should not be maintained in his court. The appropriate remedy for such a situation, especially when the order is interlocutory and not appealable, is prohibition, which prevents a tribunal from acting without or in excess of its jurisdiction or in defiance of law. The Court, in the interest of justice, treated the petition for mandamus as one for prohibition. On Issue 2: The Court found that the action concerned the title to and recovery of possession of real property situated in Oriental Negros. According to Section 3 of Rule 5 of the Rules of Court, such actions must be commenced and tried in the province where the property lies. Paragraph 1(b) of Rule 8 also allows for dismissal when venue is improperly laid. Therefore, the action was improperly brought in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, and the motion to dismiss should have been granted.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that while a judge may err in denying a motion to dismiss, mandamus is not the appropriate remedy to compel the dismissal of a case when the error involves proceeding in defiance of the Rules of Court. In such instances, prohibition is the correct writ to prevent the judge from taking cognizance of a case improperly filed in his court, especially when the order complained of is interlocutory and thus not appealable.