G.R. No. L-5329
SABINA CRUZ HERRERA DE LUKBAN, plaintiff, vs. JOSE McMICKING, sheriff ex officio of Manila, defendant.
December 21, 1909

FACTS:
Sabina Cruz Herrera de Lukban obtained a judgment for P110, plus interest and costs, against Blas Francisco from the justice of the peace court. A writ of execution was issued. The sheriff returned the execution unsatisfied, stating he was unable to find property to satisfy the same.

The plaintiff then appeared at the sheriff’s office and insisted that the sheriff levy the execution upon a specific house of mixed materials which she alleged belonged to Blas Francisco. The sheriff refused, stating that in his opinion, the house was not worth P150, citing Section 452 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions.

Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an original application for a writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court to compel the sheriff to levy the execution on the said house. Evidence presented showed that Blas Francisco owned a house of mixed materials, part of which rented for P8 per month, but there was no proof of its total value or whether it was located on Blas Francisco’s land, nor any other property belonging to him.

ISSUE:
Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued to compel the sheriff to execute a general writ of execution upon a specific piece of property after he has returned the writ unsatisfied.

RULING:
The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus.

The Court held that a writ of mandamus is not available to compel a sheriff to execute an attachment or execution against a specific piece of property when the writ is issued in general terms against the property of the debtor. The sheriff, in this case, complied with his duty by attempting to find property subject to execution and returning the writ unsatisfied.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that other remedies were sufficiently adequate for the judgment creditor. If the sheriff failed to find leviable property due to negligence, the judgment creditor has a right of action against the sheriff and his bondsmen. Additionally, the judgment creditor has other remedies under Sections 474 and 482 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions. Given the existence of these other adequate remedies, mandamus is not the proper recourse.