Abellera v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Conchita L. Abellera and private respondents, her adoptive parents, resided together in a Quezon City property since 1968. Petitioner became the beneficiary of the lot under an urban housing program in 1990. While she was on vacation in Samar, she left the house and lot to the care of her brother, private respondent Beltran Acebuche. Upon her return in 1991, the private respondents refused to vacate the premises, leading to failed mediation attempts at the barangay level. Procedural History: Petitioner filed an unlawful detainer case against the private respondents before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 35, Quezon City. The MeTC ruled in favor of the petitioner, ordering the respondents to vacate and pay monthly compensation and attorney's fees. The private respondents appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 106, Quezon City. During the pendency of the appeal, the MeTC decision was executed as no supersedeas bond was filed. The RTC, through Judge Julieto P. Tabiolo, conducted several clarificatory hearings, admitted additional evidence, and ordered an ocular inspection. On December 15, 1994, the RTC reversed the MeTC decision, dismissing the petitioner's complaint. Petitioner moved for reconsideration and later filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging that the RTC exceeded its appellate jurisdiction. The CA denied the petition and granted the private respondents' motion for restoration of possession. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the Regional Trial Court, in its appellate capacity for an unlawful detainer case under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, gravely erred by conducting clarificatory hearings, admitting additional evidence, and ordering an ocular inspection, effectively conducting a trial de novo. Petitioner also contends that the CA erred in granting the private respondents' motion for execution pending appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's denial of the petition for certiorari, finding that petitioner was estopped from questioning the RTC's actions due to her participation in the proceedings. However, the Court reversed the CA's order granting possession to the private respondents, noting that the case was before the CA on a petition for certiorari, not a regular appeal, and the matter of execution pending appeal should have been left to the trial court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Regional Trial Court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction in an unlawful detainer case covered by the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, may conduct clarificatory hearings and allow a party to submit additional evidence, and whether the Regional Trial Court, sitting as an appellate court, may issue an order for the conduct of an ocular inspection. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting private respondents' motion for execution pending appeal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision in denying the petitioner's petition for certiorari but reversed the part granting private respondents' motion to be placed in possession of the disputed property. The Court held that while the RTC erred in conducting clarificatory hearings and an ocular inspection, the petitioner was estopped from questioning these actions due to her active participation therein. However, the CA erred in granting the motion for execution pending appeal as the case was before it on a petition for certiorari, not a regular appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the RTC's conduct of clarificatory hearings and ocular inspection: The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that Regional Trial Courts, in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction, should decide cases based on the entire record of the proceedings in the court of origin and submitted memoranda or briefs, without conducting a trial de novo. The Court cited Sections 22 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Section 21(d) of the Interim Rules of Court, and Section 45 of Republic Act No. 6031 to support the principle that appellate courts should rule based on the records transmitted from the lower court. The conduct of clarificatory hearings, presentation of testimonial evidence, and ocular inspection by the RTC were therefore irregular. However, the Court found that the petitioner was estopped from questioning these irregularities. She actively participated in the seven clarificatory hearings, presented witnesses and documentary evidence, filed an offer of exhibits and a supplemental memorandum, and her counsel was present when the ocular inspection was ordered. It was only after an adverse decision that she raised the issue of jurisdiction. The Court reiterated the principle that a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief and then repudiate that same jurisdiction to escape a penalty, citing Tijam v. Sibonghanoy. On the Court of Appeals granting the motion for execution pending appeal: The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in granting the private respondents' motion for execution pending appeal. The case was before the CA on a petition for certiorari, which is a special civil action to correct grave abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction. The CA's jurisdiction was limited to passing upon the validity of the RTC's orders concerning the clarificatory hearings and ocular inspection. Matters such as execution pending appeal should have been left for resolution by the trial court, which had yet to act on the private respondents' motion for execution pending appeal.
Main Doctrine
A party who voluntarily participates in clarificatory hearings and an ocular inspection conducted by an appellate court, and submits evidence and memoranda therein, is estopped from questioning the appellate court's jurisdiction to conduct such proceedings after an adverse decision is rendered.