G.R. No. 30179, November 16, 1928
ANTONIO CASTRO REVILLA, as guardian of the minors Luz and Amparo Fanlo y Sanz, petitioner, vs. LEONARDO GARDUNO, Judge of First Instance of Romblon, ET AL., respondents.

DOCTRINE:
Mandamus is not the proper remedy to correct a trial court’s alleged error in refusing to reopen a final and executory order or to receive additional evidence when such refusal constitutes a decision on the merits. In such a case, the aggrieved party’s plain, speedy, and adequate remedy is an appeal, not a special civil action for mandamus.

FACTS

1. Antonio Castro Revilla, as the judicial guardian of the minors Luz and Amparo Fanlo y Sanz, filed motions in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Romblon on January 26, 1928, and February 24, 1928.
2. The motions sought to nullify an order dated October 15, 1917, issued by then Judge Fermin Mariano, which had approved an extrajudicial partition agreement among the heirs of the deceased Pedro Sanz.
3. The motions alleged that the consent of Rosario Sanz, the mother of the minors, to the partition was obtained through coercive measures.
4. The respondent Judge, Leonardo Garduno, issued an order on March 16, 1928, denying the motions. The court reasoned that the 1917 order had long become final and executory (more than ten years had passed), and reopening it would undermine the finality of judgments and the speedy administration of justice.
5. The petitioner then filed this petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent Judge to reopen the 1917 order and receive additional evidence on the alleged coercion.

ISSUE

Whether a writ of mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the respondent Judge to reopen a final and executory order and receive additional evidence.

RULING

NO. The petition for mandamus is denied.

1. Mandamus is Improper When Appeal is Available: The Supreme Court held that mandamus is a high prerogative writ that will not lie where there is another plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. The respondent Judge’s order of March 16, 1928, was a final determination of the proceedings initiated by the petitioner’s motions. Consequently, the proper remedy for the petitioner was to appeal that order, not to file a petition for mandamus.

2. The Lower Court’s Order was a Decision on the Merits: The Court distinguished this case from situations where mandamus is appropriate, such as when a court refuses to exercise its jurisdiction or erroneously decides a preliminary question of law and, based on that error, refuses to proceed to the merits. Here, the motions were duly heard, with stipulations of fact and lengthy arguments from counsel. The respondent Judge’s refusal to reopen the case and receive additional evidence was based on his determination that the 1917 order was final and that the motions were filed too late. This constituted a decision on the merits of the motions, not a mere procedural refusal to act.

3. Alleged Error Correctible by Appeal: Even assuming the respondent Judge erred in not receiving oral evidence on the alleged coercion, such an error is an error of judgment in the exercise of jurisdiction, not a refusal to exercise jurisdiction. Errors of this nature must be corrected through an appeal, not through mandamus.

4. Observation on the Merits (Obiter Dictum): While stating it was unnecessary to rule on the merits, the Court noted that the record did not show the partition was unjust to the minors. It clarified that the probate of a will (like that of Pedro Sanz) is conclusive only as to its due execution and the testator’s capacity, not as to the validity of its provisions against other legitimate heirs.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
“WHEREFORE, the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied with the costs against the petitioners. So ordered.”