G.R. No. L-2422; September 30, 1949
MARCELO ENRIQUEZ, petitioner, vs. HIGINIO B. MACADAEG, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, MELITON YBURAN, and THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Marcelo Enriquez sought a writ of mandamus to compel respondent Judge to dismiss Civil Case No. R-552 pending in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cebu. The case was for recovery of title and possession of a piece of real property located in Negros Oriental. The defendants (Enriquez and Philippine National Bank) moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of improper venue, citing Section 3, Rule 5 of the Rules of Court, which requires such actions to be commenced and tried in the province where the property is situated. The respondent Judge denied the motion to dismiss.

ISSUE

Whether the proper remedy to correct the respondent Judge’s denial of the motion to dismiss (based on improper venue) is a writ of mandamus.

RULING

No. Mandamus is not the proper remedy. The Court held that while the respondent Judge committed a manifest error in denying the motion to dismiss because venue was indeed improperly laid in Cebu for an action involving real property in Negros Oriental, the act of refusing to dismiss did not constitute an unlawful neglect of a specifically enjoined duty warranting mandamus. Instead, the appropriate remedy was a writ of prohibition, as the judge was proceeding in defiance of the Rules of Court by refusing to dismiss an action that could not be maintained in his court. The order being interlocutory and not appealable, prohibition was available. Treating the petition for mandamus as one for prohibition in the interest of speedy administration of justice, the Court granted the writ of prohibition, enjoining the respondent Judge from taking cognizance of the case except to dismiss it.

AI Generated by Armztrong.