Scribd
Upload
86 views1 page

Mandamus Denied in Will Production Case

The respondent filed a petition for mandamus against his mother to compel her to produce his father's holographic will so that probate proceedings could begin. The mother denied having custody of the original will. The trial court initially denied the mother's demurrer but later granted it, dismissing the case. The appellate court issued a writ of mandamus ordering production of the will. The Supreme Court ruled that mandamus was not the proper remedy as there were other adequate legal remedies available, such as proceeding with the probate under Rule 76 without the original will or using the remedy provided in Rule 75 for will production.

Uploaded by

Jj Jumalon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
86 views1 page

Mandamus Denied in Will Production Case

The respondent filed a petition for mandamus against his mother to compel her to produce his father's holographic will so that probate proceedings could begin. The mother denied having custody of the original will. The trial court initially denied the mother's demurrer but later granted it, dismissing the case. The appellate court issued a writ of mandamus ordering production of the will. The Supreme Court ruled that mandamus was not the proper remedy as there were other adequate legal remedies available, such as proceeding with the probate under Rule 76 without the original will or using the remedy provided in Rule 75 for will production.

Uploaded by

Jj Jumalon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

JUMALON, Jewelyn A.

4B

UY KIAO ENG, Petitioner, vs. NIXON LEE, Respondent.


G.R. No. 176831; January 15, 2010, Nachura, J.:

FACTS:
Respondent Nixon Lee filed a petition for mandamus against his mother, petitioner Uy Kiao Eng,
before the RTC to compel the latter 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 the
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 MR of the latter order was denied. Hence, the petition
was dismissed.

Respondent appealed to the 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 to SC contending
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:
Whether or not 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 the respondent because there lies another
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law for the production of the will.

Rule 76, Sec. 1 provides that the petition for allowance of will can proceed regardless of whether
or not petitioner has the will in his petition, while Rule 75 Secs. 2-5 provides the remedy for the
production of the holographic will.

You might also like