Monasterio-Pe v. Tong
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Jose Juan Tong, represented by his attorney-in-fact Jose Y. Ong, filed an ejectment suit against petitioners Anita Monasterio-Pe and the Spouses Romulo Tan and Editha Pe-Tan. Tong alleged he is the registered owner of two parcels of land with improvements located in Iloilo City, and that the petitioners occupied the premises without a lease agreement and without paying rent, merely by his tolerance. Despite a demand letter dated December 1, 1999, the petitioners refused to vacate. Petitioners, in their defense, claimed Tong was not the true owner, but a dummy for an alien, and that they were the rightful owners. They also pointed to a pending case before the Court of Appeals concerning the ownership of the property and questioned the validity of the barangay conciliation process. Procedural History: The ejectment case was initially filed with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 3, Iloilo City. The MTCC ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering the petitioners to vacate the premises and pay monthly compensation and attorney's fees. Aggrieved, the petitioners appealed this decision to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City, Branch 24. The RTC affirmed the MTCC's decision in its entirety. The petitioners then filed the present petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioners seek reversal of the RTC's decision through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. They argue that the RTC erred in affirming the MTCC's decision, raising issues regarding the authority of an attorney-in-fact to sign the certificate against forum shopping, the existence of a pending case involving the same issues, and the premature filing of the ejectment case due to alleged non-compliance with barangay conciliation procedures. The Supreme Court noted that the petition improperly raised factual issues and that the appeal should have been filed with the Court of Appeals under Rule 42, as the RTC acted in its appellate capacity. Nevertheless, the Court addressed the merits, finding no substantial compliance issues with the certificate against forum shopping, no bar to the ejectment action due to prior related cases, and that the ejectment suit was timely filed and properly based on tolerance.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is the proper mode of appeal. Whether an attorney-in-fact can validly execute the certificate against forum shopping. Whether the filing of the ejectment case constituted forum shopping or splitting of causes of action, given a pending case involving the same properties. Whether an unlawful detainer case is the proper remedy, or if an accion publiciana should have been filed. Whether the sale of the property was valid and constituted delivery to the respondent. Whether the ejectment case was prematurely filed due to non-compliance with barangay conciliation.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari. The Court affirmed the assailed Decision and Order of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 24.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the appeal: The Court held that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is not the proper remedy when the assailed decision was rendered by the RTC in its appellate jurisdiction. Such appeals should be filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) under Rule 42. The issues raised by petitioners, concerning physical possession and barangay conciliation, are factual and require examination of evidence, which is beyond the scope of a Rule 45 petition. Therefore, the petition was dismissed on this procedural ground alone. On the Certificate Against Forum Shopping: The Court found substantial compliance with the requirement for a certificate against forum shopping. While Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court requires the principal party to sign, the rationale that only the principal has actual knowledge does not apply when it is the attorney-in-fact who instituted the action. The attorney-in-fact, having the authority to file the complaint, is considered a party to the suit and can execute the certification. Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court also includes the representative of the owner as an authorized party to institute ejectment proceedings. On Forum Shopping and Splitting of Causes of Action: The Court ruled that respondent was not barred from filing the ejectment case. It took judicial notice of two prior cases involving the same parties and properties. The first case was dismissed, and its judgment became final. The second case, also dismissed on the ground of res judicata, did not show that the issue of ejectment was ever raised. Therefore, respondent was not splitting his cause of action, and the prior cases did not preclude the filing of the ejectment suit. On the Proper Remedy (Unlawful Detainer vs. Accion Publiciana): The Court clarified that an unlawful detainer case was the proper remedy. Respondent alleged that petitioners occupied the property by mere tolerance. Such possession becomes unlawful upon demand to vacate and refusal to comply. Respondent sent a demand letter on December 1, 1999, and filed the ejectment case on March 29, 2000, which was less than one year from the demand, thus complying with Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. The one-year period for unlawful detainer is counted from the date of demand when possession is by tolerance. On Delivery of Property: The Court found no merit in the argument that there was no delivery of the property. It cited Article 1498 of the Civil Code, stating that execution of a public instrument is equivalent to delivery unless the contrary appears. Petitioners failed to present evidence showing they did not intend to deliver the lots when they executed the deed of sale. Their continued possession was by respondent's mere tolerance, not indicative of non-delivery. On Barangay Conciliation: The Court affirmed the lower courts' findings that proper barangay conciliation proceedings were conducted. Despite allegations of defects in the initial proceedings, the case was referred back to the Pangkat Tagapagkasundo, which issued a certificate to file action after the parties failed to reach a settlement. This cured any previous procedural infirmities.
Main Doctrine
An attorney-in-fact who institutes an action on behalf of the principal may sign the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping, constituting substantial compliance with the rules. Furthermore, possession by tolerance becomes unlawful upon demand to vacate, and the filing of an unlawful detainer case within one year from such demand is timely. The execution of a public instrument of sale is equivalent to delivery of the property, absent contrary evidence, and prior barangay conciliation proceedings, even if initially defective, are cured by subsequent proper proceedings leading to a certificate to file action.