FACTS:
Clemente Manotoc, guardian of his minor children, obtained a final judgment on August 15, 1907, for P522.71 against Gregorio Trinidad. On September 2, 1907, a general writ of execution was issued by the justice of the peace to Jose McMicking, sheriff of Manila, directing him to levy on Trinidad’s property to satisfy the judgment. Manotoc alleged that Trinidad had no other executable property besides a house he lived in with his family, valued at less than P150, erected on land belonging to Manotoc’s minors, and in which Trinidad held no title. Manotoc specifically requested Sheriff McMicking to attach this particular house, but the sheriff refused. Consequently, Manotoc filed a complaint seeking a writ of mandamus to compel Sheriff McMicking to levy on and sell the specified house. The defendants demurred, arguing that the complaint did not state a cause of action.

ISSUE:
Was mandamus the proper remedy to compel the sheriff to levy execution on a specific property when the writ of execution was general and potential controversies regarding the property’s executability exist?

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court sustained the demurrer. A writ of mandamus will not lie to compel a sheriff to levy attachment upon a certain specified property.
1. The writ of execution issued to the sheriff was general against the debtor’s property, not expressly against the specific house named by the plaintiff. There is no legal provision imposing upon a sheriff the obligation to levy upon a specific piece of property when the writ of execution is in general terms.
2. The argument that the house is the only executable property assumes the property is indeed subject to execution, which can be a matter of controversy (e.g., if it is exempt). Mandamus is not the appropriate remedy to resolve such questions of law.
3. An ordinary and adequate remedy exists under the Code of Civil Procedure (Sections 474 et seq.), which provides for proceedings supplementary to the execution of judgments. This procedure allows a judge to order the application of any non-exempt property of the judgment debtor towards the satisfaction of the judgment and is suitable for addressing whether a determined property is exempt or may be levied upon. Since an ordinary and adequate remedy is available, the special and extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus cannot be granted.
The plaintiff was granted ten days to file an amended complaint.