G.R. No. 6185 - Tabigue vs. Duvall

The petitioners, Potenciano Tabigue et al., filed an application for mandamus against the respondent, Major-General William P. Duvall, commanding the Division of the Philippines of the United States Army.
The petition sought to compel the respondent to perform certain acts and restrain him from others regarding the occupation and lease of military reservation lands in the Province of Leyte.

During 1902 or 1903, the U.S. Army occupied lands in Leyte, which were privately owned by the relators, without compensating them.
The occupation continued until 1908, during which the Army used the lands as a military reservation without due payment for the use and occupation.
To determine a fair value, in early 1908, five prominent individuals (subsequently known as the Wood Board) were commissioned to assess and report on the reasonable rental value of the affected premises.
The Wood Board’s report on February 15, 1908, fixed the monthly rental rates for both the period up to that date and for the future use of the premises.

Subsequent to the Wood Board’s recommendations, military officials executed various leases covering the period up to June 30, 1910.
The relators received rental payments for only a portion of the agreed period under these leases.
In April 1910, the respondent ordered his subordinates to cease payment under one of the leases even though the contractual period had not expired.
Furthermore, the Army subsequently vacated the premises, terminating its use of the lands as a military reservation.

Revocation of the respondent’s orders that halted contractual payments.
Immediate production and/or reconstitution of lease contracts (specifically the Yates contract) and prompt payment of amounts due.
Payment of rentals and damages based on the Wood Board’s findings for both past and future periods until the relators were fully compensated.
A binding injunction to ensure the continued protection of the relators’ rights and interests.

The petition sought to compel performance and payment acts that would settle the contractual rights and obligations between the parties.

Whether it is clearly and peremptorily enjoined by law or by virtue of his official position that the respondent is obligated to perform the acts requested in the petition.
Whether the respondent has the actual power to perform these acts, particularly in view of the contested contractual obligations and administrative orders.

Whether mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel the performance of contractual obligations and to regulate conduct in matters involving contractual arrangements.
Whether the petition fails to establish that the duties to be enforced by mandamus are indisputably mandatory and free from discretion.

Whether the petition adequately alleges that the respondent has a clear duty to pay the due rentals and damages as fixed by the Wood Board, despite the pending matter of congressional appropriations and the Comptroller’s advisory pronouncements.
Whether there is sufficient ground in the petition to show that the respondent’s actions are in violation of a non-discretionary duty.