Medina, Sr. v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondents are the heirs of Leandro A. Igama, the registered owner of a residential land. In the mid-1950s, Leandro entrusted the land to his brother-in-law, Engr. Teofilo M. Mendoza, allowing him to construct a house thereon with the condition of removal or relinquishment when needed. Mendoza occupied one half and rented the other half to petitioner Ricardo Medina, Sr. since September 1957. In 1976, Mendoza was asked to turn over the property but only vacated his portion, encouraging petitioner to continue occupying his rented half and receiving rentals. On December 27, 1984, Mendoza received P10,000.00 and turned over the duplex house. Private respondents then demanded petitioner vacate as a family member needed the house. Petitioner refused, leading to barangay conciliation, which failed. Procedural History: Private respondents filed an unlawful detainer complaint on May 16, 1985, with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Manila. The MTC ruled in favor of private respondents, ordering petitioner to vacate and pay attorney's fees and costs. Petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which affirmed the MTC decision en toto. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration and motion for ocular inspection were denied by the RTC. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA), which was denied due to being filed out of time. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration with the CA was also denied. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the CA resolutions dismissing his petition for review for being filed out of time.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the Honorable Court has jurisdiction to entertain these unlawful detainer proceedings, and whether the petition for review was filed out of time? In the event that the Honorable Court does have jurisdiction to entertain the case, is the defendant (your petitioner) entitled to an extension of at least one (1) year considering his almost twenty eight (28) years of occupancy with no rentals in arrears, and is accion publiciana the proper remedy? Whether or not the public respondent has committed grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed the petition for review filed by the petitioner on the ground that it is filed out of time? Was the adjacent door of the duplex premises of the private respondents (plaintiffs in the inferior court) been vacated for the last seven months during the pendency of the appeal or not?
Ruling
The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and timeliness of the petition for review: The Court held that the procedural aspect of the case, specifically the timeliness of the petition for review, was the primary issue. Petitioner claimed to have filed the petition by registered mail on July 14, 1986, citing NAWASA v. Secretary of Public Works and Communications. However, the records showed that the petition was filed by personal service on July 15, 1986, at 3:25 p.m., as stamped on the petition itself. The Court found the evidence of personal delivery more persuasive than the postmaster's certification and the lack of a registry return card. Consequently, the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that it was bereft of jurisdiction to pass upon the assailed decision, which had become final and executory as of July 14, 1986. The Court reiterated that the perfection of an appeal within the period laid down by law is mandatory and jurisdictional, and failure to do so renders the judgment final and executory, citing Quiqui v. Boncaros. On the contention that the proper remedy is accion publiciana and not unlawful detainer, and on the entitlement to an extension of occupancy: The Court found the contention that the proper remedy is accion publiciana untenable. The petitioner's right to occupy the property was derived from Engr. Mendoza, whose right had been terminated. When Mendoza turned over the property and petitioner refused to vacate after demand, his possession became unlawful. Since the unlawful detainer suit was filed on May 16, 1985, which is within one year from the cause of action (December 27, 1984, when possession became unlawful after demand), it was the proper remedy. The Court defined unlawful detainer as the withholding of possession for not more than one year after the termination of the right to hold possession, and accion publiciana as a plenary action to recover the right to possess when the deprivation occurred more than one year prior. The filing within the one-year period placed the case squarely within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court, citing Bernabe v. Luna. The Court also ruled that petitioner was not entitled to an extension of at least one year. The private respondents, as owners, were not privy to any agreement between petitioner and Engr. Mendoza and were not bound by it. Petitioner occupied the premises by tolerance, and since no lease contract existed between him and the owners, he was not covered by rental laws, nor could the owners be compelled to grant an extension of a contract they never executed. On whether the public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion: The Court held that the procedural aspect of the case, specifically the timeliness of the petition for review, was the primary issue. Petitioner claimed to have filed the petition by registered mail on July 14, 1986, citing NAWASA v. Secretary of Public Works and Communications. However, the records showed that the petition was filed by personal service on July 15, 1986, at 3:25 p.m., as stamped on the petition itself. The Court found the evidence of personal delivery more persuasive than the postmaster's certification and the lack of a registry return card. Consequently, the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that it was bereft of jurisdiction to pass upon the assailed decision, which had become final and executory as of July 14, 1986. The Court reiterated that the perfection of an appeal within the period laid down by law is mandatory and jurisdictional, and failure to do so renders the judgment final and executory, citing Quiqui v. Boncaros. On the status of the adjacent door: The Court deemed it immaterial whether the adjacent door of the duplex premises had been vacated for seven months. The crucial point was that Engr. Mendoza was duty-bound to vacate the premises as stipulated, and so were all persons claiming under him, including the petitioner.
Main Doctrine
A petition for review filed out of time is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as the judgment sought to be reviewed has become final and executory. The nature of an ejectment suit (unlawful detainer vs. accion publiciana) depends on whether it is filed within or beyond one year from the deprivation of possession.