GR L 6185; (August, 1910) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-6185
POTENCIANO TABIGUE, ET AL., petitioners, vs. WILLIAM P. DUVALL, respondent.
August 2, 1910
—
FACTS:
Petitioners owned lands in Leyte that were occupied by the United States Army as a military reservation from 1902 or 1903 until 1908 without compensation. In 1908, a “Wood Board” investigated and determined reasonable rental values for the past and future use of the premises. Subsequently, military officials executed leases based on these findings. However, respondent Maj. Gen. William P. Duvall, commanding the Division of the Philippines, ordered the discontinuation of payments on one of these leases and ceased the Army’s occupation of the premises. Petitioners filed an application for mandamus to compel Duvall to revoke his orders, enforce compliance with the contracts, pay the rentals and damages determined by the Wood Board, locate existing contracts, and perform other related acts to ensure full compensation.
ISSUE:
Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued to compel the respondent, a military general, to perform the acts prayed for, including the payment of rentals and damages related to the Army’s occupation of petitioners’ land.
RULING:
The Supreme Court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the petition.
The Court held that for a writ of mandamus to issue, the duties to be enforced must be clearly and peremptorily enjoined by law or official station, and the respondent must have the power to perform the act. In this case:
1. There was an absence of adequate allegation that it was the respondent’s duty to perform the acts prayed for.
2. There was an entire absence of allegation that the respondent had the power to perform these acts.
3. The propriety of the payments was doubtful and, in effect, prohibited by the Comptroller of the Treasury, who stated that military authorities were not authorized to pay “damages under the guise of rents” from existing appropriations and that the Wood Board’s findings were not binding. The Comptroller further noted that Congress alone could afford relief for such damages.
4. There was no allegation that the funds for such payments were appropriated and under the respondent’s control, nor that he lacked discretion in executing leases or making payments.
The Court emphasized that mandamus does not lie to compel anyone to fulfill contractual obligations or to regulate a course of conduct. The petitioners’ claims essentially sought to settle contractual rights and obligations, which is not the function of mandamus. The order denying the application for injunction was also affirmed.