G.R. No. L-13162; August 31, 1960
C.N. HODGES, petitioner, vs. HON. FRANCISCO ARELLANO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, and WILLIAM C. PFLEIDER, respondents.

FACTS

On February 13, 1954, petitioner C.N. Hodges and respondent William C. Pfleider entered into a “contract to sell” involving two parcels of land for a total price of P90,273.73, payable in installments with interest. The contract provided for delivery of possession upon signing and payment of the first installment. On January 28, 1956, Hodges executed a notarial act cancelling the contract due to Pfleider’s alleged failure to comply with its terms and demanded possession of the lands. On March 13, 1956, Hodges filed a detainer action in the Justice of the Peace Court of Asia, Occidental Negros, seeking to recover possession, compensation for use, attorney’s fees, and costs. The Justice of the Peace Court ruled in favor of Hodges, ordering Pfleider to vacate the property, pay monthly compensation, attorney’s fees, and costs. Hodges moved for immediate execution of this judgment. However, Pfleider appealed to the Court of First Instance (Civil Case No. 4438). In the appealed case, Hodges again moved for immediate execution. Pfleider filed a “motion to dismiss with preliminary injunction,” arguing the complaint stated no cause of action, the justice of the peace court lacked jurisdiction, and the action was barred by res judicata. The Court of First Instance, through respondent Judge Francisco Arellano, dismissed Hodges’s complaint on September 7, 1957, on the ground that Hodges, by himself alone, had no right to rescind the contract to sell for Pfleider’s failure to pay. Hodges’s motion for reconsideration was denied on October 28, 1957. Hodges then filed the present petition for mandamus, claiming he had no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, and prayed for the reinstatement of his case, execution of the justice of the peace court’s judgment, or an order for Pfleider to file a supersedeas bond and pay monthly compensation.

ISSUE

Whether a writ of mandamus is the proper remedy for the petitioner under the circumstances.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus. The Court held that the writ of mandamus is granted only when “there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” In this case, the petitioner had the plain, speedy, and adequate remedy of appealing from the order of dismissal entered by the respondent Court of First Instance. Since such an appeal was available, the extraordinary remedy of mandamus was not warranted. Costs were imposed against the petitioner.