Del Mundo v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated from a lease agreement with an option to purchase between petitioner Gerardo A. del Mundo and respondents Spouses Carlos and Alejandra Nava for a house and lot. Petitioner leased the property in 1981 and was given an option to buy until October 1982. Unable to exercise the option due to lack of funds, petitioner persuaded the Navas, who were in the United States, to sign a Deed of Sale with Assignment of Mortgage and an Addendum, ostensibly to allow him to secure a bank loan to pay for the property and assume their existing obligations. However, petitioner failed to pay the mortgage to Philippine Veterans Bank, the debt to Mrs. Ligaya Gonzales, and the obligation to Pablo Nava, leading the Navas to lose faith and execute a Revocation of the Deed of Sale with Assignment of Mortgage in March 1983. 2. Procedural History: The Navas filed an unlawful detainer case (Civil Case No. 44181) against petitioner in August 1983, which was eventually appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) as Civil Case No. Q-92-12438. The RTC ordered the issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal in January 1993, and later modified the Metropolitan Trial Court's decision in June 1993. Concurrently, petitioner filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief to Quiet Title (Special Civil Action No. Q-46386) in November 1985, seeking to declare the Deed of Sale valid. The RTC dismissed this petition in May 1991, declaring the Deed of Sale null and void and the Revocation valid. Petitioner appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA G.R. CV No. 33251), which affirmed the RTC's ruling in August 1992 and denied reconsideration in January 1993. 3. The Petition: The instant petition, treated as a petition for review under Rule 45, seeks to reverse the Court of Appeals' decision in CA G.R. CV No. 33251, which affirmed the dismissal of petitioner's declaratory relief case. Petitioner contends that the Deed of Sale with Assignment of Mortgage is valid, that the Court of Appeals erred in giving credence to parol evidence over the written instrument, and in admitting the private respondents' documentary evidence. Additionally, petitioner assails the RTC judge's grave abuse of discretion in ordering the writ of execution in the unlawful detainer case, arguing the Metropolitan Trial Court lacked jurisdiction. The Court notes a misjoinder of causes of action and treats the petition primarily as a review of the declaratory relief case, finding the errors raised to be factual and thus binding on the Supreme Court, and further noting that the writ of execution in the ejectment case has already been implemented and affirmed by a subsequent RTC decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari is the proper remedy to assail the decision of the Court of Appeals in the declaratory relief case and the issuance of the writ of execution in the unlawful detainer case. Whether the Deed of Sale with Assignment of Mortgage is valid and binding. Whether the RTC judge committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal in the unlawful detainer case, and related issues of formal offer of documentary exhibits and delaying tactics.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CV No. 33251 is affirmed. Petitioner Gerardo A. del Mundo is reprimanded and sternly warned against future delaying tactics.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy and misjoinder of causes of action: The Court noted a misjoinder of causes of action as the petition sought to review two separate cases: the declaratory relief case and the unlawful detainer case. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is for acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, while errors of judgment are raised in a petition for review under Rule 45. The petition, by joining these distinct causes of action, revealed a lack of understanding of the proper legal remedies. The Court treated the petition as a petition for review of the Court of Appeals' decision in the declaratory relief case. On the validity of the Deed of Sale with Assignment of Mortgage: The Court upheld the findings of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals that the Deed of Sale with Assignment of Mortgage was simulated and made without consideration. The Court found no justification to depart from the well-settled principle that the findings of fact of the lower courts are binding and conclusive. The Court highlighted several factual findings supporting this conclusion, including the lack of corroboration for petitioner's alleged payment, the absence of a receipt, conflicting statements regarding the place of payment, petitioner's continued payment of rentals, his failure to declare the property as his own, and his series of letters requesting the Navas to sign documents to facilitate a bank loan. On the validity of the writ of execution in the ejectment case, the formal offer of documentary exhibits, and delaying tactics: The Court found no merit in petitioner's contention that the documentary exhibits of the private respondents were not properly offered, agreeing with the Court of Appeals that the exhibits were formally offered and properly admitted by the trial court. Although the issue of the writ of execution should have been raised in a separate petition for certiorari, the Court resolved it to end the protracted legal battle, finding that petitioner failed to provide substantial justification for his allegations that the Metropolitan Trial Court lacked jurisdiction. The Court reiterated that the issue of possession can be resolved in an ejectment proceeding without deciding ownership, and that the MTC is empowered to decide ownership if indispensable to possession. Furthermore, the writ of execution had already been served and effected, and a decision confirming its propriety had been rendered by the RTC, rendering the issue moot and academic. The Court strongly condemned petitioner's use of legal knowledge to delay the case, noting that the ejectment case had been pending for over ten years, finding that petitioner's actions were a clear pattern of conduct to frustrate relief and stave off the inevitable surrender of possession. The Court's decision to reprimand petitioner and warn him against future delaying tactics underscores the seriousness of such conduct.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy to assail errors of judgment, which should be raised in a petition for review under Rule 45. Furthermore, a petition cannot join causes of action arising from separate and distinct cases.