GR L 6203; (February, 1954) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-6203; February 26, 1954
JOSE R. MAGLUNOB, ET AL., petitioner-appellants, vs. THE NATIONAL ABACA & OTHER FIBERS CORPORATION, respondent-appellee.
FACTS
The petitioners, claiming to be landless war veterans and deserving guerrillas qualified under Republic Acts Nos. 8 and 65 and related Presidential directives, sought to compel the respondent corporation to award them portions of a parcel of land they had allegedly occupied. They petitioned for a writ of mandamus to enforce their right to lease or purchase these lands and to enjoin the respondent from disturbing their possession. The respondent corporation answered that the land in question was owned by the Furukawa Plantation Company, a separate corporation, as evidenced by Torrens Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1405, and was reserved for rehabilitating the abaca industry. The respondent argued that the cited laws and directives conferred no specific legal right upon the petitioners and imposed no ministerial duty on the corporation to award the land. The trial court, after a preliminary hearing, dismissed the complaint on the ground that the land belonged to a distinct corporation, and the respondent thus lacked authority to alienate it. The petitioners appealed, maintaining that the land was under the management and disposition of the respondent corporation.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioners are entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent corporation to award them portions of the land, based on Republic Acts Nos. 8 and 65 and the invoked Presidential directives.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition for mandamus. The Court held that even assuming the land was subject to disposition under Republic Act No. 65 , the petitioners had no specific legal right enforceable by mandamus. The Act merely grants a preference to qualified veterans and guerrillas, which involves the exercise of discretion in determining eligibility. The Presidential directives cited are administrative in nature and cannot confer legal rights; such rights are conferred only by law. Since no specific legal duty was imposed on the respondent corporation by the statutes or directives, mandamus does not lie. The Court noted that a remand to determine ownership was unnecessary due to this dispositive legal ground, though it observed that if the Furukawa Plantation Company was indeed the separate owner, the respondent would not be the real party in interest. The order of dismissal was affirmed without costs.