Republic v. Sunvar Realty
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Republic of the Philippines and National Power Corporation (NPC) are co-owners of several parcels of land, including a subject property of approximately 22,294 square meters. Respondent Sunvar Realty Development Corporation (Sunvar) occupied this property by virtue of sublease agreements that expired on December 31, 2002. The main lease contract between petitioners and the Technology Resource Center Foundation, Inc. (TRCFI), which allowed subleasing, also expired on the same date. Sunvar had introduced improvements on the property and leased out spaces. After TRCFI was dissolved and replaced by the Philippine Development Alternatives Foundation (PDAF), Sunvar sought to renew its sublease. However, both petitioners (Republic and NPC) decided not to renew the main lease contract. Sunvar continued to occupy the property even after the expiration of the lease and sublease agreements. Procedural History: On February 22, 2008, petitioners sent Sunvar a notice to vacate, which was ignored. A final notice to vacate was sent on February 3, 2009. On July 23, 2009, petitioners filed a Complaint for unlawful detainer with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati City. Sunvar moved to dismiss, arguing lack of privity of contract and that the case should be an accion publiciana, not unlawful detainer, due to the elapsed time. The MeTC denied the motion. Sunvar then filed a Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, assailing the MeTC's denial. The RTC granted the certiorari petition, ordering the MeTC to dismiss the unlawful detainer complaint for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that the one-year period should be counted from the expiration of the lease contracts. The Petition: Petitioners filed a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to reverse the RTC's decision and to have the MeTC proceed with the unlawful detainer case.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioners' resort to a Rule 45 Petition is the proper mode of review. Whether the Regional Trial Court erred in taking cognizance of respondent Sunvar's Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari against an interlocutory order in a summary proceeding. Whether the one-year period for filing an unlawful detainer case should be reckoned from the expiration of the lease contract or from the last demand to vacate.
Ruling
The Supreme Court GRANTED the Petition for Review on Certiorari, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the assailed Decision of the RTC, and DIRECTED the MeTC to proceed with the summary proceedings for the unlawful detainer case.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of a Rule 45 Petition: The Court held that petitioners' resort to a Rule 45 Petition was proper. While an order of dismissal by the RTC might ordinarily be subject to a Rule 65 certiorari petition, the Rules do not prohibit a Rule 45 Petition when only questions of law are raised. The issue of the RTC's jurisdiction to entertain a certiorari petition against an interlocutory order in a summary proceeding, and the correct application of the Rules on Summary Procedure, are clearly questions of law. Therefore, the instant Rule 45 Petition was correctly lodged with the Supreme Court. On the propriety of a Rule 65 Petition in Summary Proceedings: The Court found that the RTC erred in taking cognizance of Sunvar's Rule 65 Petition. The Rules on Summary Procedure expressly prohibit a certiorari petition against an interlocutory order issued in a summary proceeding. The prohibition is clear, and Sunvar's reliance on "extraordinary circumstances" as seen in Bayog v. Natino and Go v. Court of Appeals was misplaced. Unlike in those cases, Sunvar was not facing a procedural void or grave injustice; its proper remedy was to proceed with the summary hearings and file its answer. Allowing such petitions would defeat the purpose of expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure. On reckoning the one-year period in Unlawful Detainer Cases: The Court ruled that petitioners correctly availed themselves of an action for unlawful detainer. The one-year period for filing an unlawful detainer case is reckoned from the date of the last demand to vacate, not from the expiration of the lease contract. In this case, Sunvar's possession became unlawful upon the service of the final notice to vacate on February 3, 2009. Petitioners filed their Complaint on July 23, 2009, which was well within the one-year period from the last demand. The Court acknowledged an earlier notice to vacate in 2008 but reasoned that the subsequent final demand in 2009 gave Sunvar another opportunity to comply, and the one-year period must be reckoned from this latest demand. The Court also noted that the argument that the 2009 notice was a mere reminder was a factual issue not properly raised in a Rule 45 Petition.
Main Doctrine
The one-year period for filing an unlawful detainer case is reckoned from the date of the last demand to vacate, not from the expiration of the lease contract. A petition for certiorari against an interlocutory order in a summary proceeding is generally prohibited, absent extraordinary circumstances or a procedural void.