Sy v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Leopoldo Sy (petitioner) filed an unlawful detainer case against Emeterio M. Calugay and others (private respondents) for premises located at 2040 Leveriza Street, Malate, Manila. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Manila, Branch XIX, initially handled the case. Private respondents sought to dismiss or suspend the proceedings, citing a pending case (Civil Case No. 88-47264) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch XXXVI, concerning the annulment of sale and reconveyance of the subject property, which they claimed involved their right to repurchase the property. The MTC denied the motion to suspend proceedings and proceeded under the Rule on Summary Procedure. 2. Procedural History: The MTC, after denying further motions to suspend, rendered a decision on November 27, 1989, ordering the ejectment of private respondents and payment of back rentals and attorney's fees. Private respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, which the MTC denied as a prohibited pleading under the Rule on Summary Procedure. Subsequently, their notice of appeal was also denied due course for being filed out of time. A writ of execution and notice of levy followed. Private respondents then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the RTC, seeking to annul the MTC's orders and decision. The RTC, initially issuing a writ of preliminary injunction, later dismissed the petition, citing procedural defects and the lack of a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Private respondents appealed this dismissal to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus. 3. The Petition: In the CA, private respondents sought to annul the RTC's dismissal order and subsequent execution orders from the MTC. The CA issued a temporary restraining order and later a resolution denying the motion for restoration of possession, noting the writ of execution had already been implemented. However, in a subsequent resolution dated October 31, 1990, the CA ordered the return of the premises and seized goods to private respondents, and for petitioner to pay monthly rentals, which petitioner argues was issued with grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner's current petition before the Supreme Court seeks to annul this October 31, 1990 resolution, arguing that the CA should not have assumed jurisdiction over the certiorari petition given that the MTC decision had become final and executory due to the untimely appeal, and that the CA's resolution contradicted its earlier stance.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in issuing its resolution dated October 31, 1990. Whether the pendency of a separate action for annulment of sale and reconveyance involving ownership constitutes a prejudicial question that warrants suspension of an unlawful detainer case governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure. Whether the filing of a motion for reconsideration, which is a prohibited pleading under the Rule on Summary Procedure, tolls the reglementary period to appeal. Whether a special civil action for certiorari is the proper remedy to assail a decision that has become final and executory due to failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled and set aside the assailed resolution of the Court of Appeals dated October 31, 1990, and directed the Court of Appeals to proceed with deliberate dispatch in CA-G.R. SP No. 22521. Dispositive Portion: ACCORDINGLY, the assailed resolution of October 31, 1990, is hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE, with the directive that respondent court forthwith proceed with deliberate dispatch in CA-G.R. SP No. 22521 in the manner indicated herein. SO ORDERED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Court of Appeals' resolution of October 31, 1990: The Court found that the CA's resolution of October 31, 1990, which ordered the return of the premises and seized goods, was contrary to its earlier resolution of August 24, 1990, which denied the motion for restoration precisely because the writ of execution had already been enforced. The Court concluded that the CA should have first resolved the jurisdictional issue of whether it could entertain the certiorari petition at all, given that the MTC decision had become final and executory. The Court found that the CA's resolution was issued with grave abuse of discretion, as it preempted the resolution of the main case and rendered potentially nugatory any decision the CA might have made on the merits. On the applicability of the Rule on Summary Procedure and the existence of a prejudicial question: The Court reiterated that unlawful detainer cases falling within the jurisdiction of metropolitan trial courts are governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure, except when the question of ownership is involved or damages exceed P20,000.00. The Court found that the question of ownership was not directly involved or a determinant factor in the ejectment case itself, but rather the subject of a separate action in another court. The Court cautioned that allowing the filing of an action in a regional trial court contesting ownership to thwart the applicability of the Rule on Summary Procedure in ejectment cases would easily undermine the purpose of the rule. The Court emphasized that the pendency of an action for annulment of sale and reconveyance may not be successfully pleaded in abatement of an action for unlawful detainer. The determination of ownership in a separate case is not a valid reason to frustrate the summary remedy of ejectment, as judgments in ejectment suits do not bar actions respecting title to the land. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of the court in ejectment cases is determined by the allegations of the complaint, not by the defenses raised by the defendant. On the effect of a prohibited motion for reconsideration and the perfection of appeal: The Court affirmed that under the Rule on Summary Procedure, a motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading. The filing of such a prohibited pleading does not toll the reglementary period to appeal. Consequently, the notice of appeal filed by private respondents was out of time, rendering the MTC decision final and executory. The Court stressed that the perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional; failure to do so deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to alter the final judgment. On the propriety of certiorari as a remedy: The Court reiterated its consistent stance that petitions for certiorari are generally dismissed when the assailed decisions or orders could have been, but were not, appealed. While exceptions exist, such as when public welfare dictates, the broader interests of justice require, or the writ issued is null, or the order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority, or appeal is an inadequate remedy, the Court found that these exceptions were not sufficiently demonstrated in the case at bar. The Court noted that the private respondents had a plain remedy of appeal, which they failed to perfect within the reglementary period. The Court found it imperative for the CA to have first determined whether any of these exceptions applied before assuming jurisdiction over the petition for certiorari, especially when the judgment sought to be reviewed was allegedly final and executory.
Main Doctrine
The pendency of an action for annulment of sale and reconveyance does not constitute a valid reason to frustrate the summary remedy of ejectment, as the determination of ownership in another case does not bar the resolution of possession in an ejectment suit, especially when the Rule on Summary Procedure is applicable.