Saycon v. Tulabing
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents, heirs of Alejandro Tulabing, alleged that since 1950, Alejandro had been in possession of a fishpond. Alejandro leased a 4-hectare portion to petitioner Nemesio Saycon from March 1, 1970, to March 31, 1978, and renewed the lease from March 1, 1979, to March 31, 1982. Alejandro sold 7 hectares of his fishpond to Lawrence Teves on March 17, 1980, and died on November 18, 1980. Upon termination of the second lease, respondents sought to recover possession of the leased portion due to unpaid rentals. Petitioners claimed possession since 1969 and applied for a fishpond lease in 1982, asserting their portion was part of the property sold to Teves and was adjacent to Alejandro's fishpond. Procedural History: Respondents filed an ejectment and recovery of possession case. The RTC ruled in favor of respondents, ordering defendants to vacate, pay rentals, and attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals remanded the case for further trial to definitively identify the property. The RTC issued a Supplemental Decision identifying the specific area to be vacated. Petitioners appealed this Supplemental Decision. Respondents filed a motion for execution pending appeal, which the RTC granted. Petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion before the Court of Appeals questioning the RTC's Special Order for execution pending appeal, arguing lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals denied the Omnibus Motion, stating it no longer had jurisdiction. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was also denied. The Petition: Petitioners seek review of the Court of Appeals' Resolutions denying their Omnibus Motion, arguing the RTC lacked jurisdiction over the ejectment case and that the Court of Appeals erred in denying their motion.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying petitioners' Omnibus Motion. Whether the petition for review on certiorari was filed within the reglementary period. Whether the RTC had jurisdiction over the ejectment case filed directly before it. Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of execution pending appeal.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated August 11, 2005, and March 23, 2006, are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of the Omnibus Motion: The Court of Appeals correctly denied petitioners' Omnibus Motion because it no longer had jurisdiction over the case as an incident of a supposed pending appeal. The Court of Appeals had already promulgated its decision on September 26, 1995, and the records were remanded to the trial court on April 17, 1996. Therefore, any subsequent motion questioning the trial court's orders should have been filed through a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, not as an incident of an already terminated appeal. The Court reiterated that the petitioners' contention regarding the RTC's jurisdiction should have been raised through the appropriate remedy, not through an omnibus motion filed after the appellate court's decision had become final and executory. On the timeliness of the petition: The petition was filed out of time. Petitioners received the Court of Appeals' Resolution dated August 11, 2005, on August 23, 2005. They filed a Motion for Reconsideration on September 7, 2005, which was denied on March 23, 2006. The 15-day reglementary period to appeal the March 23, 2006 Resolution ended on April 14, 2006 (Good Friday). Petitioners filed a motion for extension on April 17, 2006, and another on May 15, 2006. The Court granted a total of 45 days' extension from April 14, 2006, making the deadline May 29, 2006. However, the petition was filed on May 30, 2006, one day late. The Court emphasized the strict adherence to reglementary periods for filing appeals, as these periods are considered jurisdictional and failure to comply results in the loss of the right to appeal. On the jurisdiction of the RTC: While the petition raised the issue of the RTC's jurisdiction over ejectment cases, the Supreme Court did not pass upon this substantive issue. This is because the Court found the petition to be procedurally infirm due to its late filing and the Court of Appeals' lack of jurisdiction to entertain the Omnibus Motion. The Court's primary focus was on the procedural aspects that led to the denial of the motion before the appellate court and the subsequent petition before the Supreme Court. The Court noted that the issue of jurisdiction, if properly raised, would have been a critical point, but the procedural defects precluded its substantive resolution in this instance. No Ratio provided for the issue: Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of execution pending appeal.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals correctly denied petitioners' Omnibus Motion as it no longer had jurisdiction to rule on the motion as an incident of a supposed pending appeal, given that the case had already been decided and the records remanded to the trial court. Furthermore, the petition was filed out of time.