Facts:
On July 8, 1846,
respondent Antonio G. Azaola sued
Guna Lalwani,
V. Lilaram & Company, and
Gacilago & Company in
Civil Case No. 25 of the court of first instance of Manila to enforce a certain
credit note. After the defendants answered and the case proceeded to trial, the court rendered judgment on July 19, 1949, dismissing the complaint as to V. Lilaram & Company, declaring that Azaola was entitled to receive from
Gacilago & Company whisky, rum, and/or gin in specified bottle sizes and at specified prices sufficient to cover
PHP 10,000, and ordering Azaola to take delivery within thirty days from the date the judgment became final; it also provided that upon failure,
Gacilago & Company and
Guna Lalwani could pray for execution directing the sheriff to sell the liquor at public auction and turn over the net proceeds to Azaola, with the balance recoverable by writ of execution against
Gacilago & Company and
Guna Lalwani after deducting the value of delivered or sold merchandise.
Guna Lalwani died about a month before the judgment, and estate proceedings were begun in Rizal in
Sp. Proc. No. 965, where
Topandas Verhomal was appointed and qualified as administrator. A writ of execution was issued on July 19, 1949 in the precise terms of the decision, but no liquor was actually delivered to, nor seized by, the sheriff. On October 31, 1949, Azaola filed a claim for
PHP 10,000 against the estate of Guna Lalwani in the Rizal special proceeding, and the administrator made no objection; on December 16, 1949, the Rizal court admitted the claim, reasoning that the judgment had not been executed and the claim was satisfactorily proven. In the meantime, on November 16, 1949, Topandas Verhomal requested the sheriff in Manila to take delivery of the liquor, but the sheriff declined to accept it after being instructed by Azaola on the ground that the liquor was poisonous. On March 16, 1950, petitioners moved the Manila court to command the sheriff to accept the liquor tendered and sell it to satisfy Azaola’s judgment;
respondent Judge Oscar Costelo denied the motion, holding that the Rizal court had finally approved Azaola’s claim for
PHP 10,000. Petitioners then filed this
petition for mandamus to compel the respondent judges, or whoever was acting, to order the sheriff to take, sell, and deliver proceeds to Azaola. The Court noted that in
G. R. No. L-3781 (Verhomal v. Tan) filed earlier by the same petitioners, the petitioners had attempted to stop the Rizal judge from requiring satisfaction of the approved claim; that petition had already been dismissed, with the Court stating that the proper remedy was appeal at the proper time, not certiorari, and that the judgment in the Manila case could not be executed because the debtor had died and Azaola’s resort to the intestate proceedings in Rizal was appropriate.
Issues:
Whether
mandamus could compel the respondent judges to order the Manila sheriff to accept the tendered liquor, sell it at public auction, and turn over the proceeds to Azaola despite the Rizal court’s final approval of Azaola’s claim against the deceased Guna Lalwani’s estate.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: