Gutierrez v. Magat
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated from an ejectment case, Civil Case No. 20, filed in the municipal court of Mangatarem, Pangasinan, which was subsequently appealed to the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan as Civil Case No. 14995. The petitioners, Buenaventura Gutierrez and others, were the defendants in this ejectment suit, while Ramon D. Abad and others were the plaintiffs. 2. Procedural History: Following a decision by the Court of First Instance in the ejectment case, the petitioners attempted to appeal. However, the respondent Judge Romeo D. Magat issued an order on October 4, 1974, declaring his decision final and executory, and refusing to give due course to the petitioners' appeal. This refusal was based on the judge's interpretation that the decision was not appealable under Section 45 of the Judiciary Law, as amended by Republic Act No. 6031. 3. The Petition: The petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition, seeking to annul the respondent Judge's order of October 4, 1974. They contended that the order was issued with grave abuse of discretion. Initially, they sought an extension of time to file a petition for certiorari and mandamus, and later, the petition was considered as potentially a petition for review under Republic Act No. 5440 or a certiorari and prohibition case under Rule 65. The Supreme Court found the petition to be filed out of time, regardless of the applicable period, and also determined that the lower court acted correctly in disallowing the appeal by record on appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition was filed within the reglementary period. Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to give due course to the petitioners' appeal by record on appeal from the decision in an ejectment case originating from the municipal court. Whether the issue of de facto possession is the sole issue in an ejectment case.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for having been filed out of time. The resolution of May 28, 1975, giving due course to the petition, is set aside. The lower court acted correctly in not allowing the appeal by record on appeal, and its order was not reviewable by certiorari and prohibition. The petition is also insufficient in form and substance.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the petition was filed within the reglementary period: The Court found that the petition was filed out of time, regardless of whether the thirty-day period under Republic Act No. 5440 was counted from October 12, 1974, or November 11, 1974. The mailing of the petition on January 2, 1975, was beyond the reglementary period. The Court noted that the fees for the motion for extension were paid on November 20, 1974, and the lower court's judgment was executed on December 21, 1974, further indicating the delay. Consequently, the petition should be dismissed for tardiness. On Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to give due course to the petitioners' appeal by record on appeal from the decision in an ejectment case originating from the municipal court: The Court held that the respondent Judge acted correctly in not allowing the appeal by record on appeal. Section 45 of the Judiciary Law, as amended by Republic Act No. 6031, explicitly prohibits an appeal by record on appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance in an appealed case that falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the municipal or city court. Therefore, the order rejecting the appeal was not issued with grave abuse of discretion and was not reviewable by certiorari and prohibition. On Whether the issue of de facto possession is the sole issue in an ejectment case: The Court affirmed that the assumption of the lower court that only the issue of de facto possession is involved in an ejectment case is correct. The Court cited established jurisprudence stating that "the only issue in forcible entry and detainer cases is the physical possession of real property — possession de facto and not possession de jure." The petitioners' contention that issues regarding the area occupied and damages are legal questions was deemed manifestly wrong.
Main Doctrine
The Court reiterated that decisions of the Court of First Instance (CFI) in cases originating from municipal courts, such as ejectment suits, are not appealable by record on appeal. Instead, they are reviewable by a petition for review under Republic Act No. 5440. The Court emphasized that failure to file such a petition within the reglementary period, even if an extension was sought and granted, renders the petition tardy and subject to dismissal. Moreover, the Court clarified that the sole issue in ejectment cases is physical possession (de facto possession), not legal possession (de jure).