G.R. No. L-3823; April 27, 1951
Topandas Verhomal, et al., petitioners, vs. Honorable Conrado V. Sanchez, et al., respondents.

FACTS

On July 8, 1946, respondent Antonio G. Azaola sued Guna Lalwani, V. Lilaram & Company, and Gacilago & Company in Civil Case No. 25 of the Court of First Instance of Manila to enforce a credit note. On July 19, 1949, judgment was rendered. The dispositive part ordered, among other things, that Azaola was entitled to receive from defendant Gacilago & Co. whisky, rum, and/or gin in specified bottles and prices sufficient to cover P10,000, with Azaola to take delivery within 30 days from the finality of judgment. It further provided that if Azaola failed to do so, defendants Gacilago & Co. and Guna Lalwani could pray for a writ of execution directing the sheriff to sell the liquor at public auction and turn over the net proceeds to Azaola. After deducting the value of the liquor delivered or sold from the P10,000, Azaola could procure a writ of execution against said defendants for any balance. Guna Lalwani had died about a month before the judgment. Proceedings to settle his estate (Sp. Proc. No. 965 of Rizal) were begun in June 1949, with petitioner Topandas Verhomal appointed as administrator. On July 19, 1949, a writ of execution was issued in Civil Case No. 25, but no liquor was actually delivered to or seized by the sheriff. On October 31, 1949, Azaola filed a claim for P10,000 against Lalwani’s estate in the Rizal proceedings, founded on the Manila judgment. The administrator did not object, and on December 16, 1949, the Rizal court admitted Azaola’s claim. According to petitioners, on November 16, 1949, Verhomal requested the Manila sheriff to take delivery of the liquor, but the sheriff declined, explaining Azaola had instructed him not to because the liquor was poisonous. On March 16, 1950, petitioners asked the Manila court to command the sheriff to accept and sell the liquor tendered. Respondent Judge Oscar Costelo denied the motion, citing the Rizal court’s final approval of Azaola’s claim. Petitioners filed this mandamus petition to compel the respondent judges to order the sheriff to take, sell, and deliver the proceeds of the liquor to Azaola in satisfaction of the judgment.

ISSUE

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued to compel the respondent judges to order the sheriff to take, sell at auction, and deliver the proceeds of the liquor tendered by petitioners to respondent Azaola in satisfaction of the judgment in Civil Case No. 25.

RULING

No. The petition for mandamus is denied. First, the judgment in Civil Case No. 25 could not be executed due to the death of judgment debtor Guna Lalwani before the execution, making Azaola’s recourse to the intestate proceedings in Rizal appropriate. Second, the order of the Rizal court approving Azaola’s claim for P10,000 against Lalwani’s estate became final in January 1950 because no appeal was taken. It would be useless to order the sale of the liquor because, regardless of its value, Azaola could insist on the full P10,000 claim approved by the final Rizal court order. Petitioners’ failure to oppose Azaola’s claim in the Rizal court or make proper representations about offsetting the claim with the liquor sale precludes relief. Furthermore, respondents’ undenied allegation that the offered liquor had deteriorated indicates the equities are not on petitioners’ side.