G.R. No. 26374, December 31, 1926
NICANOR JACINTO, petitioner, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, respondent.

FACTS

Nicanor Jacinto purchased at a sheriff’s sale the rights and interests of Frank W. Carpenter in several lots of the Tala Friar Lands Estate. Carpenter had previously acquired these lots from the government under sales certificates but had not fully paid the purchase price. Jacinto tendered payment to the Director of Lands for the remaining balance of the purchase price and demanded the execution of a deed of conveyance in his favor. The Director of Lands refused, primarily on the ground that the lots were already involved in expropriation proceedings initiated by the Metropolitan Water District, which had taken possession of the land for a public project. The Director argued that executing a conveyance would be useless and improper since the land was being condemned.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Director of Lands can be compelled by a writ of mandamus to execute a deed of conveyance in favor of Jacinto upon his tender of the full purchase price.
2. Whether mandamus is the proper remedy to enforce such a right.

RULING

NO, on both issues. The Supreme Court denied the petition for mandamus to compel the execution of a deed of conveyance but ordered the Director of Lands to accept the tender of payment.

1. Mandamus is not the proper remedy to enforce purely contractual rights, such as the right to a conveyance arising from a sale of government patrimonial property. The Court cited precedent (Quiogue vs. Romualdez) and legal principles stating that mandamus does not lie to enforce contractual obligations.

2. No law specially enjoins the Director of Lands to execute deeds of conveyance for patrimonial property of the government. The Court examined the relevant laws and found that under Section 567 of the Administrative Code, the duty to execute such conveyances for government patrimonial lands devolved upon the Governor-General, not the Director of Lands. Therefore, the Director had no ministerial duty to execute the deed, which is a prerequisite for mandamus under Section 222 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. However, the Director of Lands has a clear ministerial duty under Section 14 of Act No. 1120 to receive payments for Friar Lands. Consequently, while the writ could not compel the execution of the deed, it could and did compel the Director to accept the tender of the balance of the purchase price from Jacinto.

4. The expropriation proceedings did not extinguish Jacinto’s right to complete his purchase. The Court noted that in condemnation proceedings, proprietary rights (except the right of occupation) are not affected until the award is fully satisfied. Therefore, the pending expropriation was not a valid legal ground for the Director to refuse the tender of payment.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the execution of deeds of conveyance was DENIED. The respondent Director of Lands was ORDERED to receive the balance of the purchase money tendered by the petitioner for the lots in question. No costs were awarded.