Case Digest (G.R. No. 176831)
Facts:
In Uy Kiao Eng v. Nixon Lee, petitioner Uy Kiao Eng is the sole surviving parent and custodian of the original holographic will of her late husband, who died on June 22, 1992 in Manila. On May 28, 2001, respondent Nixon Lee, their son and one of the named devisees, filed Civil Case No. 01100939 for mandamus with damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila to compel production of the will so that probate proceedings could commence. Uy denied having the original will, asserting she only distributed photocopies to her children and moved to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action and non-compliance with conditions precedent. After respondent presented his evidence, Uy demurred to evidence; the RTC initially denied her demurrer but later, upon reconsideration, granted it and dismissed the petition. On appeal (CA‐G.R. SP No. 91725), the Court of Appeals first denied relief but, in its August 23, 2006 Amended Decision, reversed course, issued the writ ofCase Digest (G.R. No. 176831)
Facts:
- Parties and Initial Petition
- Petitioner Uy Kiao Eng (mother) is alleged custodian of the original holographic will of her late husband, who died on June 22, 1992 in Manila.
- Respondent Nixon Lee (son) filed on May 28, 2001 a petition for mandamus with damages (Civil Case No. 01100939, RTC Manila) to compel production of the will for probate proceedings.
- Trial Court Proceedings
- In her answer and counterclaim, petitioner denied custody of the original will, claimed she gave photocopies to her children, and argued non-compliance with conditions precedent and lack of cause of action.
- RTC Manila first denied petitioner’s demurrer to evidence but subsequently granted it on reconsideration (Feb. 4, 2005), dismissing the petition; respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied (Sept. 20, 2005).
- Court of Appeals Proceedings
- CA initially denied respondent’s appeal (Apr. 26, 2006), holding mandamus inappropriate when other remedies (production and probate under Rules 75–76) exist and respondent failed to prove custody of the original will.
- On respondent’s motion for reconsideration, CA issued an Amended Decision (Aug. 23, 2006) granting the writ of mandamus, ordering production of the will and attorney’s fees; it denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Feb. 23, 2007).
- Petition for Review
- Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via Rule 45, contending mandamus is not the proper remedy and that the appellate court relied on inadmissible testimonial evidence.
- The Supreme Court granted the certiorari petition, reviewed the propriety of mandamus and adequacy of alternate remedies.
Issues:
- Whether a writ of mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the production of an original holographic will by a private individual.
- Whether respondent had a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, rendering mandamus inappropriate.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)