G.R. No. L-27150 November 28, 1969
LUZ JALANDONI VDA. DE SERRA, as Judicial Administratrix of the Estate of the late Rosario Jalandoni, petitioner-appellee, vs. HON. RAFAEL M. SALAS, as Executive Secretary, HON. VITALIANO BERNARDINO, as Director of Public Schools, and HON. FAUSTINO SYCHANGCO, as Budget Commissioner, respondents-appellants.

FACTS

The government had been in possession since 1919 of two parcels of land in Iloilo City, owned originally by Francisco Jalandoni, using them as the site of the Iloilo Normal School. After a court battle initiated by Rosario Jalandoni (Francisco’s sole heir), the Court of Appeals granted her a writ of possession over the lots in 1961. The government, through the Director of Public Schools, negotiated to purchase the lots. Congress appropriated P1,775,000 for the purchase via Republic Act 4642. On September 24, 1965, petitioner, as administratrix of Rosario’s estate, executed a deed of conveyance selling the lots to the Republic for P1,775,000, with the Director of Public Schools signing “Conforme.” The contract was approved by the Executive Secretary “by authority of the President” on December 24, 1965, and by the Court of First Instance of Iloilo on December 31, 1965. Upon the change in administration, the new Executive Secretary issued a stop-payment order on January 4, 1966. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was not acted upon, leading to the filing of a petition for mandamus and prohibition in the Court of First Instance of Manila to compel payment. The trial court granted the petition, ordering respondents to release the funds. Respondents appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner has a clear legal right to the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel the government officials to pay the purchase price under the deed of conveyance.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the lower court and dismissed the petition for mandamus and prohibition. The Court held that mandamus requires a showing of a clear and certain legal right to the performance of a ministerial duty. The contract of sale, involving an expenditure of P1,775,000, was subject to Sections 607 and 608 of the Revised Administrative Code. Section 607 mandates that no such contract shall be entered into until the Auditor General certifies that funds have been duly appropriated and are available, and such certificate must be attached to and become part of the contract. Section 608 declares any contract entered into contrary to these requirements “wholly void.” The contract in question was executed without the required Auditor General’s certificate. Therefore, the contract was void, and petitioner did not establish a clear legal right to payment. Mandamus does not issue in doubtful cases or to enforce a right based on a void contract.