Melchor L. Lagua v. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al.,

Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

MELCHOR L. LAGUA,                           Petitioner,                - versus - THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,                           Respondent.

G.R. No. 173390 Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, DEL CASTILLO,* PEREZ, SERENO, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: June 27, 2012

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

DECISION

SERENO, J.:

In dismissing the present Petition filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, we find no valid, justifiable reason for petitioner’s failure to file his appellant’s brief with the Court of Appeals (CA) that would warrant a reversal of the CA Resolutions dated 25 November 2005[1] and 17 May 2006.[2] To rule otherwise would make light of this Court’s extraordinary certiorari jurisdiction, which operates only upon a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the appellate tribunal.[3]

On 11 April 2003, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig rendered a Decision in Criminal Case Nos. 118032-H and 118033-H finding the accused petitioner guilty of homicide and sentencing him to 8 years of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years of reclusion temporal as maximum in each case. On 19 May 2003, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal with the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 27423. On 18 June 2003, he filed a Very Urgent Petition for Bail Pending Appeal, which the CA granted without objection from the Office of the Solicitor General.[4] On 6 November 2003, an Order of release upon bond was issued in his favor by the Division Clerk of Court of the CA.[5]

On 14 October 2003, petitioner received the Order from the CA requiring, within 45 days from receipt thereof, or until 28 November 2003, the filing of his Appellant’s Brief.[6] He filed a Motion for Extension of another 45 days from 28 November 2003, or until 12 January 2004, within which to file the said brief. On 8 January 2004, he filed a Second Motion for Extension asking for an additional 45 days, which the CA granted with a warning that no further extension shall be allowed.[7] Thus, petitioner had 45 days from 12 January 2004 or until 26 February 2004.

Despite the two extensions, petitioner Lagua still failed to file his appellant’s brief. On 5 May 2004, the CA ordered him through counsel to show cause, within five days from receipt, why the appeal should not be dismissed pursuant to Section 8, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court. He again failed to submit his brief within the reglementary period and to comply with the Court’s 5 May 2004 Resolution. Thus, on 1 September 2004, the CA issued a Resolution declaring the appeal abandoned and accordingly dismissed pursuant to the Rules.

On 14 October 2004, petitioner’s counsel of record, Atty. Salvador Quimpo, manifested to the Court that he had already withdrawn as defense counsel for petitioner, but that he had failed to secure the latter’s conformity.[8] The following day, petitioner himself filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the 1 September 2004 Resolution, requesting more time to secure the services of another counsel. On 20 October 2004, the Solicitor General, manifesting that accused-appellant’s abandonment of his appeal rendered the judgment of conviction final and executory, moved for his immediate arrest and confinement at the New Bilibid Prison.[9]

In its Resolution dated 9 February 2005, the CA stated that it had never received a Notice of Withdrawal from Atty. Quimpo, but nevertheless granted a 30-day period for petitioner and his new counsel to file a Notice of Appearance. Again, petitioner failed to comply. On 8 July 2005, the CA issued another Show Cause Order, directing him to explain within 10 days why he had not caused the appearance of his new counsel, and why the appeal should not be considered abandoned. Instead of filing a timely compliance, petitioner’s new counsel, Atty. Emerson Barrientos filed a Notice of Appearance on 8 March 2005 or almost a month after the Show Cause Order.

On 17 August 2005, the CA filed a Resolution stating that in the interest of justice, the Notice of Appearance was considered sufficient compliance with the Order of 8 July 2005. It granted the Motion for Reconsideration, set aside the Order of Dismissal issued on 1 September 2004, and gave petitioner and his new counsel a non-extendible period of 30 days within which to file the appellant’s brief.

Notwithstanding the new non-extendible period, petitioner again failed to seasonably file his brief, prompting the CA to issue the first assailed Resolution dated 25 November 2005, which, for the second time, declared his appeal abandoned and accordingly dismissed. Roused from inaction, he filed another Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Admit Appellant’s Brief on 19 December 2005, or 18 days after his counsel received the 25 November 2005 Resolution.

In its second assailed Resolution issued on 17 May 2006, the CA denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration and ordered the Appellant’s Brief to be expunged from the records, viz:

Indeed the present appeal has been dismissed twice by the Court because of accused-appellant’s failure to file his brief. The present motion for reconsideration of the second dismissal of the appeal was even filed three (3) days beyond the reglementary period. Ineluctably, the dismissal of the present appeal has become final and accused-appellant has lost his right to appeal.

It bears stressing that accused-appellant cannot simply trifle with the rules of procedure on the pretext that his life and liberty are at stake. For appeal is a mere statutory privilege to be exercised in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law granting the privilege.[10] x x x.

Petitioner comes to this Court alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the lower court in declaring the appeal abandoned, pointing to the negligence and errors of his counsel as the cause of the two-year delay in coming up with the brief. Petitioner reasons that there would be no prejudice to the People if his appeal is reinstated, and that he has a good defense that can lead to his acquittal.

We dismiss the Petition.

The certiorari jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is rigorously streamlined, such that Rule 65 only admits cases based on the specific grounds provided therein. The Rule applies if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The independent action for certiorari will lie only if grave abuse of discretion is alleged and proven to exist. Grave abuse of discretion is the arbitrary or despotic exercise of power due to passion, prejudice or personal hostility; or the whimsical, arbitrary, or a capricious exercise of power that amounts to an evasion or a refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law. For an act to be struck down as having been done with grave abuse of discretion, the abuse of discretion must be patent and gross.[11]

In the present case, petitioner would have us strike down the Resolutions of the CA declaring his appeal as abandoned for purportedly being issued in grave abuse of discretion. Yet, far from committing the grievous error petitioner presents it to be, the CA merely exercised the authority expressly granted to it under Rule 124, which we quote below:

Sec. 8. Dismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure to prosecute. – The appellate court may, upon motion of the appellee or on its own motion and notice to the appellant, dismiss the appeal if the appellant fails to file his brief within the time prescribed by this rule, except in case the appellant is represented by a counsel de oficio.

Petitioner was represented by private counsel (and not counsel de oficio) to whom the CA had granted multiple extensions: two for Atty. Quimpo; and two for Atty. Barrientos, whose Notice of Appearance was submitted a month after the Show Cause Order of 8 July 2005. As for Atty. Quimpo, he filed his Manifestationmore than a month after the CA had first issued the dismissal. It was only because of the plea for compassion in petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration that the CA granted him another 30 days in order to secure the services of another lawyer. Again, petitioner failed to comply. Both he and the new counsel, Atty. Barrientos, also failed to comply with the second Show Cause Order.

Yet again, the CA allowed Atty. Barrientos’ Notice of Appearance and considered it substantial compliance with the second Show Cause Order. Out of the CA’s liberality, petitioner was given another 30 days to come up with the Appellant’s Brief. This he failed to submit, prompting the CA, for the second and final time, to declare his appeal as abandoned. Even then, his Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Admit Appellant’s Brief was filed 18 days after his counsel received the CA Resolution.

In his Petition, Lagua bewails the negligence and mishandling by his two previous counsels as the reason for the delay, which has lasted for more than two years. However, it is clear from the facts that despite the liberality and consideration afforded to him by the CA, he is by no means blameless. More importantly, his excuse cannot serve as a substitute for the jurisdictional requirements under Rule 65. It does not amount to any grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of discretion that may be attributable to the appellate court. Under the circumstances, the CA was well within the authority granted to it under the cited rule.

Nothing is more settled than the rule that the negligence and mistakes of counsel are binding on the client.[12] Otherwise, there would never be an end to a suit, so long as counsel could allege its own fault or negligence to support the client’s case and obtain remedies and reliefs already lost by the operation of law.

The rationale for this rule is reiterated in the recent case Bejarasco v. People:

The general rule is that a client is bound by the counsel’s acts, including even mistakes in the realm of procedural technique. The rationale for the rule is that a counsel, once retained, holds the implied authority to do all acts necessary or, at least, incidental to the prosecution and management of the suit in behalf of his client, such that any act or omission by counsel within the scope of the authority is regarded, in the eyes of the law, as the act or omission of the client himself.

It is the client’s duty to be in contact with his lawyer from time to time in order to be informed of the progress and developments of his case; hence, to merely rely on the bare reassurances of his lawyer that everything is being taken care of is not enough.[13] (Emphasis supplied.)

In Tan v. Court of Appeals, the Court explained:

As clients, petitioners should have maintained contact with their counsel from time to time, and informed themselves of the progress of their case, thereby exercising that standard of care “which an ordinarily prudent man bestows upon his business.”

Even in the absence of the petitioner’s negligence, the rule in this jurisdiction is that a party is bound by the mistakes of his counsel. In the earlier case of Tesoro v. Court of Appeals, we emphasized –

It has been repeatedly enunciated that “a client is bound by the action of his counsel in the conduct of a case and cannot be heard to complain that the result might have been different had he proceeded differently. A client is bound by the mistakes of his lawyer. If such grounds were to be admitted as reasons for reopening cases, there would never be an end to a suit so long as new counsel could be employed who could allege and show that prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligent or experienced or learned.”

Thus, with the ordinary remedy of appeal lost through the petitioner’s own fault, we affirm that no reversible error was committed in the dismissal of the petition by the appellate court.[14]

Petitioner was granted bail, and he had all the time to contact his counsel or follow up on the appeal himself. He is similarly responsible for procuring the services of new counsel after having been told of Atty. Quimpo’s withdrawal. Yet he offered no explanation why it took him so long to apprise Atty. Barrientos of the case, or why they had repeatedly failed to comply with the CA’s Orders after several extensions. As he has lost the ordinary remedy of appeal because of his own laxity, we cannot allow him to haphazardly take advantage of the remedy of certiorari.

The Court cannot tolerate habitual failure to follow the procedural rules, which are indispensable for the orderly and speedy disposition of justice. Otherwise these rules would be rendered useless.[15] In Polintan v. People, the Court of Appeals gave the petitioner therein a total of 75 days to submit his Appellant’s Brief, but he failed to do so. In that case, the accused Polintan filed a “Very Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Admit Appellant’s Brief.” This Court affirmed the CA Resolution declaring his appeal abandoned, after finding his excuses too flimsy to warrant reversal.

In the present case, accused Lagua was given more time, not only to file his Appellant’s Brief, but also to secure new counsel to adequately prepare the appeal. The CA issued two Show Cause Orders and two Resolutions declaring the appeal as abandoned. Despite these issuances, his second Motion for Reconsideration was filed 18 days after his receipt of the second and final CA Resolution. To our mind, this delay is indicative of sheer laxity and indifference on his part, for which he has lost the statutory right of appeal. Even during the intervening period after counsel has withdrawn, litigants are expected to be vigilant and conscious of the status of their cases, viz:

The appellate court committed no error therefore in dismissing the appeal. Petitioners-appellants have shown no valid and justifiable reason for their inexplicable failure to file their brief and have only themselves to blame for their counsel’s utter inaction and gross indifference and neglect in not having filed their brief for a year since receipt of due notice to file the same. They could not even claim ignorance of the appellate court’s notice to file brief since it had required withdrawing counsel Valente to secure their written conformity before granting his withdrawal as counsel, and certainly they must have ascertained from him as well as new counsel the status of their appeal — which accounts for Atty. Valente’s repeated prayers in his two motions for withdrawal for the granting of sufficient time for new counsel to file the brief. They had almost a year thereafter to make sure that their new counsel did attend to their appeal and did file the brief.[16]

In Estate of Felomina G. Macadangdang v. Gaviola,[17] the Court made a clear finding of negligence on the part of the lawyer handling the petitioner’s case, but nevertheless affirmed the denial of the appeal. It confirmed that the petitioner was bound by his counsel’s negligence. It ruled that “the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process, but is merely a statutory privilege that may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by the law.”

Neither can we deem petitioner Lagua’s Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Admit Appellant’s Brief as substantial compliance with the procedural requirement. In Cariño v. Espinoza,[18] the appellate court rightly disallowed the submission of the Appellant’s Brief after a delay of seven months. In this case, it took petitioner almost two years from 26 February 2004 (after the CA gave him a second non-extendible period of 45 days) to finally submit his Appellant’s Brief on 19 December 2005.

Lastly, it is erroneous for petitioner to declare that there would be no prejudice to the People if his appeal is reinstated.[19] The judgment of conviction having attained finality, respondent is now entitled to execution as a matter of right. This Court has recently declared:

Nothing is more settled in law than that once a judgment attains finality it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. The enforcement of such judgment should not be hampered or evaded, for the immediate enforcement of the parties’ rights, confirmed by final judgment, is a major component of the ideal administration of justice. This is the reason why we abhor any delay in the full execution of final and executory decisions. Thus, a remedy intended to frustrate, suspend, or enjoin the enforcement of a final judgment must be granted with caution and upon a strict observance of the requirements under existing laws and jurisprudence.[20] x x x.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DISMISSED. The assailed Resolutions issued by the Court of Appeals on 25 November 2005 and 17 May 2006 in CA-G.R. CR No. 27423 are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Senior Associate Justice

Chairperson

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO                            JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ     

       Associate Justice                                               Associate Justice

BIENVENIDO L. REYES

Associate Justice

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

          I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

 

 

        ANTONIO T. CARPIO

       Senior Associate Justice

                                                             (Per  Section 12, R.A. 296,

                                                     The Judiciary Act 1948, as amended)

---

* Designated additional member per Raffle dated 27 June 2012  in lieu of Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion due to prior action in the Court of Appeals.

[1] In CA-G.R. CR No. 27423, penned by Associate Justice Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis, and concurred in by Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Fernanda Lampas Peralta; rollo, pp. 37-38.

[2] Penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta and concurred in by Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. and Mario L. Guariña III, rollo, pp. 39-42.

[3] 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 65, Sec. 1.

[4] Rollo, p. 78.

[5] Id. at 80.

[6] Id. at 81.

[7] Id. at 86.

[8] Id. at 89-90.

[9] Id. at 91-91.

[10] Id. at 42.

[11] Beluso v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 180711, 22 June 2010, 621 SCRA 450.

[12] Sapad v. Court of Appeals, 401 Phil. 478, 483 (2000).

[13] G.R. No. 159781, 2 February 2011, 641 SCRA 328, 330-331.

[14] 524 Phil. 752, 760-761 (2006).

[15] Polintan v. People, G.R. No. 161827, 21 April 2009, 586 SCRA 111.

[16] Villasis v. CA, 158 Phil. 335, 340-341 (1974).

[17] G.R. No. 156809, 4 March  2009, 580 SCRA 565, 573.

[18] G.R. No. 166036, 19 June 2009, 590 SCRA 43.

[19] Rollo, pp. 27-28.

[20] Pahila- Garrido v. Tortogo, G.R. No. 156358, 17 August 2011, 655 SCRA 553, 558.

Source: 

Republic of the Philippines, et al., v. Sunvar Realty Development Corporation

Republic of the PhilippinesSupreme CourtManila

SECOND DIVISION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, both represented by the PRIVATIZATION MANAGEMENT OFFICE,                                         Petitioners,                                 - versus - SUNVAR REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,                                                                   Respondent.

G.R. No. 194880 Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, BRION, PEREZ, SERENO, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: June 20, 2012

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

D E C I S I O N

SERENO, J.:

This is a Rule 45 Petition questioning the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, which ordered the dismissal of the Complaint for unlawful detainer filed by petitioners herein with the Metropolitan Trial Court.

Petitioners Republic of the Philippines (Republic) and National Power Corporation (NPC) are registered co-owners of several parcels of land located along Pasong Tamo Extension and Vito Cruz in Makati City, and covered by four Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs).[1] The main subject matter of the instant Petition is one of these four parcels of land covered by TCT No. 458365, with an area of approximately 22,294 square meters (hereinafter, the subject property). Eighty percent (80%) of the subject property is owned by petitioner Republic, while the remaining twenty percent (20%) belongs to petitioner NPC.[2] Petitioners are being represented in this case by the Privatization Management Office (PMO), which is the agency tasked with the administration and disposal of government assets.[3]Meanwhile, respondent Sunvar Realty Development Corporation (Sunvar) occupied the subject property by virtue of sublease agreements, which had in the meantime expired.

The factual antecedents of the case are straightforward. On 26 December 1977,[4] petitioners leased the four parcels of land, including the subject property, to the Technology Resource Center Foundation, Inc., (TRCFI) for a period of 25 years beginning 01 January 1978 and ending on 31 December 2002.[5] Under the Contract of Lease (the main lease contract), petitioners granted TRCFI the right to sublease any portion of the four parcels of land.[6]

Exercising its right, TRCFI consequently subleased a majority of the subject property to respondent Sunvar through several sublease agreements (the sublease agreements).[7] Although these agreements commenced on different dates, all of them contained common provisions on the terms of the sublease and were altogether set to expire on 31 December 2002, the expiration date of TRCFI’s main lease contract with petitioners, but subject to renewal at the option of respondent:[8]

The term of the sublease shall be for an initial period of [variable] years and [variable] months commencing on [variable], renewable for another twenty-five (25) years at SUNVAR’s exclusive option.[9]

According to petitioners, in all the sublease agreements, respondent Sunvar agreed “to return or surrender the subleased land, without any delay whatsoever upon the termination or expiration of the sublease contract or any renewal or extension thereof.”[10]

During the period of its sublease, respondent Sunvar introduced useful improvements, consisting of several commercial buildings, and leased out the spaces therein.[11] It also profitably utilized the other open spaces on the subject property as parking areas for customers and guests.[12]

In 1987, following a reorganization of the government, TRCFI was dissolved. In its stead, the Philippine Development Alternatives Foundation (PDAF) was created, assuming the functions previously performed by TRCFI.[13]

On 26 April 2002, less than a year before the expiration of the main lease contract and the sublease agreements, respondent Sunvar wrote to PDAF as successor of TRCFI. Respondent expressed its desire to exercise the option to renew the sublease over the subject property and proposed an increased rental rate and a renewal period of another 25 years.[14] On even date, it also wrote to the Office of the President, Department of Environment and Natural Resources and petitioner NPC. The letters expressed the same desire to renew the lease over the subject property under the new rental rate and renewal period.[15]

On 10 May 2002, PDAF informed respondent that the notice of renewal of the lease had already been sent to petitioners, but that it had yet to receive a response.[16] It further explained that the proposal of respondent for the renewal of the sublease could not yet be acted upon, and neither could the proposed rental payments be accepted.[17] Respondent acknowledged receipt of the letter and requested PDAF to apprise the former of any specific actions undertaken with respect to the said lease arrangement over the subject property.[18]

On 03 June 2002, six months before the main contract of lease was to expire, petitioner NPC – through Atty. Rainer B. Butalid, Vice-President and General Counsel – notified PDAF of the former’s decision not to renew the contract of lease.[19] In turn, PDAF notified respondent of NPC’s decision.[20]

On the other hand, petitioner Republic through then Senior Deputy Executive Secretary Waldo Q. Flores likewise notified PDAF of the former’s decision not to renew the lease contract.[21] The Republic reasoned that the parties had earlier agreed to shorten the corporate life of PDAF and to transfer the latter’s assets to the former for the purpose of selling them to raise funds.[22] On 25 June 2002, PDAF duly informed respondent Sunvar of petitioner Republic’s decision not to renew the lease and quoted the Memorandum of Senior Deputy Executive Secretary Flores.[23]

On 31 December 2002, the main lease contract with PDAF, as well as its sublease agreements with respondent Sunvar, all expired. Hence, petitioners recovered from PDAF all the rights over the subject property and the three other parcels of land. Thereafter, petitioner Republic transferred the subject property to the PMO for disposition. Nevertheless, respondent Sunvar continued to occupy the property.

On 22 February 2008, or six years after the main lease contract expired, petitioner Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), advised respondent Sunvar to completely vacate the subject property within thirty (30) days.[24]  The latter duly received the Notice from the OSG through registered mail,[25]but failed to vacate and remained on the property.[26]

On 03 February 2009, respondent Sunvar received from respondent OSG a final notice to vacate within 15 days.[27] When the period lapsed, respondent Sunvar again refused to vacate the property and continued to occupy it.

On 02 April 2009, the PMO issued an Inspection and Appraisal Report to determine the fair rental value of the subject property and petitioners’ lost income – a loss arising from the refusal of respondent Sunvar to vacate the property after the expiration of the main lease contract and sublease agreements.[28] Using the market comparison approach, the PMO determined that the fair rental value of the subject property was ₱10,364,000 per month, and that respondent Sunvar owed petitioners a total of ₱630,123,700 from 01 January 2002 to 31 March 2009.[29]

On 23 July 2009, petitioners filed the Complaint dated 26 May 2009 for unlawful detainer with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati City. Petitioners prayed that respondent Sunvar be ordered to vacate the subject property and to pay damages for the illegal use and lost income owing to them:

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is most respectfully prayed that after proper proceedings, judgment be rendered:

1.         Ordering defendant SUNVAR REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and all persons, natural and juridical, claiming rights under it, to vacate the subject property and peacefully surrender the same, with the useful improvements therein, to the plaintiffs or to their authorized representative; and

2.         Ordering defendant SUNVAR REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION to pay plaintiffs damages in the amount of SIX HUNDRED THIRTY MILLION ONE HUNDRED TWENTY THREE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED PESOS (₱630,123,700.00) for the illegal and unauthorized use and occupation of the subject property from January 1, 2003 to March 31, 2009, and the amount of TEN MILLION THREE HUNDRED SIXTY-FOUR THOUSAND PESOS (₱10,364,000.00) per month from April 1, 2008 until the subject property, together with its improvements, are completely vacated and peacefully surrendered to the plaintiffs or to their authorized representative.[30]

Respondent Sunvar moved to dismiss the Complaint and argued that the allegations of petitioners in the Complaint did not constitute an action for unlawful detainer, since no privity of contract existed between them.[31] In the alternative, it also argued that petitioners’ cause of action was more properly an accion publiciana, which fell within the jurisdiction of the RTC, and not the MeTC, considering that the petitioners’ supposed dispossession of the subject property by respondent had already lasted for more than one year.

In its Order dated 16 September 2009, the MeTC denied the Motion to Dismiss and directed respondent Sunvar to file an answer to petitioners’ Complaint.[32]The lower court likewise denied the Motion for Reconsideration[33] filed by respondent.[34] Respondent later on filed its Answer[35]  to the Complaint.[36]

Despite the filing of its Answer in the summary proceedings for ejectment, respondent Sunvar filed a Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari with the RTC of Makati City to assail the denial by the MeTC of respondent’s Motion to Dismiss.[37]

In answer to the Rule 65 Petition of respondent, petitioners placed in issue the jurisdiction of the RTC and reasoned that the Rules on Summary Procedure expressly prohibited the filing of a petition for certiorari against the interlocutory orders of the MeTC.[38] Hence, they prayed for the outright dismissal of thecertiorari Petition of respondent Sunvar.

The RTC denied the motion for dismissal and ruled that extraordinary circumstances called for an exception to the general rule on summary proceedings.[39]Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration,[40] which was subsequently denied by the RTC.[41] Hence, the hearing on the certiorari Petition of respondent proceeded, and the parties filed their respective Memoranda.[42]

In the assailed Order dated 01 December 2010, which discussed the merits of the certiorari Petition, the RTC granted the Rule 65 Petition and directed the MeTC to dismiss the Complaint for unlawful detainer for lack of jurisdiction.[43] The RTC reasoned that the one-year period for the filing of an unlawful detainer case was reckoned from the expiration of the main lease contract and the sublease agreements on 31 December 2002. Petitioners should have then filed an accion publiciana with the RTC in 2009, instead of an unlawful detainer suit.

Hence, the instant Rule 45 Petition filed by petitioners.[44]

I

Petitioners’ Resort to a Rule 45 Petition

Before the Court proceeds with the legal questions in this case, there are procedural issues that merit preliminary attention.

Respondent Sunvar argued that petitioners’ resort to a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari before this Court is an improper mode of review of the assailed RTC Decision. Allegedly, petitioners should have availed themselves of a Rule 65 Petition instead, since the RTC Decision was an order of dismissal of the Complaint, from which no appeal can be taken except by a certiorari petition.

The Court is unconvinced of the arguments of respondent Sunvar and holds that the resort by petitioners to the present Rule 45 Petition is perfectly within the bounds of our procedural rules.

As respondent Sunvar explained, no appeal may be taken from an order of the RTC dismissing an action without prejudice,[45] but the aggrieved party may file acertiorari petition under Rule 65.[46] Nevertheless, the Rules do not prohibit any of the parties from filing a Rule 45 Petition with this Court, in case only questions of law are raised or involved.[47] This latter situation was one that petitioners found themselves in when they filed the instant Petition to raise only questions of law.

In Republic v. Malabanan,[48] the Court clarified the three modes of appeal from decisions of the RTC, to wit: (1) by ordinary appeal or appeal by writ of error under Rule 41, whereby judgment was rendered in a civil or criminal action by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction; (2) by a petition for review under Rule 42, whereby judgment was rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction; and (3) by a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court under Rule 45. “The first mode of appeal is taken to the [Court of Appeals] on questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law. The second mode of appeal is brought to the CA on questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law. The third mode of appeal is elevated to the Supreme Court only on questions of law.”[49] (Emphasis supplied.)

There is a question of law when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented or of the truth or falsehood of the facts being admitted, and the doubt concerns the correct application of law and jurisprudence on the matter.[50] The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances.[51]

In the instant case, petitioners raise only questions of law with respect to the jurisdiction of the RTC to entertain a certiorari petition filed against the interlocutory order of the MeTC in an unlawful detainer suit. At issue in the present case is the correct application of the Rules on Summary Procedure; or, more specifically, whether the RTC violated the Rules when it took cognizance and granted the certiorari petition against the denial by the MeTC of the Motion to Dismiss filed by respondent Sunvar. This is clearly a question of law that involves the proper interpretation of the Rules on Summary Procedure. Therefore, the instant Rule 45 Petition has been properly lodged with this Court.

II

Propriety of a Rule 65 Petition in Summary Proceedings

Proceeding now to determine that very question of law, the Court finds that it was erroneous for the RTC to have taken cognizance of the Rule 65 Petition of respondent Sunvar, since the Rules on Summary Procedure expressly prohibit this relief for unfavorable interlocutory orders of the MeTC. Consequently, the assailed RTC Decision is annulled.

Under the Rules on Summary Procedure, a certiorari petition under Rule 65 against an interlocutory order issued by the court in a summary proceeding is a prohibited pleading.[52] The prohibition is plain enough, and its further exposition is unnecessary verbiage.[53] The RTC should have dismissed outright respondent Sunvar’s Rule 65 Petition, considering that it is a prohibited pleading. Petitioners have already alerted the RTC of this legal bar and immediately prayed for the dismissal of the certiorari Petition.[54] Yet, the RTC not only refused to dismiss the certiorari Petition,[55] but even proceeded to hear the Rule 65 Petition on the merits.

 Respondent Sunvar’s reliance on Bayog v. Natino[56] and Go v. Court of Appeals[57] to justify a certiorari review by the RTC owing to “extraordinary circumstances” is misplaced. In both cases, there were peculiar and specific circumstances that justified the filing of the mentioned prohibited pleadings under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure – conditions that are not availing in the case of respondent Sunvar.

In Bayog, Alejandro Bayog filed with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Patnongon-Bugasong-Valderama, Antique an ejectment case against Alberto Magdato, an agricultural tenant-lessee who had built a house over his property. When Magdato, an illiterate farmer, received the Summons from the MCTC to file his answer within 10 days, he was stricken with pulmonary tuberculosis and was able to consult a lawyer in San Jose, Antique only after the reglementary period. Hence, when the Answer of Magdato was filed three days after the lapse of the 10-day period, the MCTC ruled that it could no longer take cognizance of his Answer and, hence, ordered his ejectment from Bayog’s land. When his house was demolished in January 1994, Magdato filed a Petition for Relief with the RTC-San Jose, Antique, claiming that he was a duly instituted tenant in the agricultural property, and that he was deprived of due process. Bayog, the landowner, moved to dismiss the Petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction on the part of the RTC, since a petition for relief from judgment covering a summary proceeding was a prohibited pleading. The RTC, however, denied his Motion to Dismiss and remanded the case to the MCTC for proper disposal.

In resolving the Rule 65 Petition, we ruled that although a petition for relief from judgment was a prohibited pleading under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, the Court nevertheless allowed the filing of the Petition pro hac vice, since Magdato would otherwise suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury:

We disagree with the RTC’s holding that a petition for relief from judgment (Civil Case No. 2708) is not prohibited under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, in light of theJakihaca ruling. When Section 19 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure bars a petition for relief from judgment, or a petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by the court, it has in mind no other than Section 1, Rule 38 regarding petitions for relief from judgment, and Rule 65 regarding petitions for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition, of the Rules of Court, respectively. These petitions are cognizable by Regional Trial Courts, and not by Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. If Section 19 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure and Rules 38 and 65 of the Rules of Court are juxtaposed, the conclusion is inevitable that no petition for relief from judgment nor a special civil action of certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus arising from cases covered by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure may be filed with a superior court. This is but consistent with the mandate of Section 36 of B.P. Blg. 129 to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination of the cases subject of summary procedure.

Nevertheless, in view of the unusual and peculiar circumstances of this case, unless some form of relief is made available to MAGDATO, the grave injustice and irreparable injury that visited him through no fault or negligence on his part will only be perpetuated. Thus, the petition for relief from judgment which he filed may be allowed or treated, pro hac vice, either as an exception to the rule, or a regular appeal to the RTC, or even an action to annul the order (decision) of the MCTC of 20 September 1993. As an exception, the RTC correctly held that the circumstances alleged therein and the justification pleaded worked in favor of MAGDATO, and that the motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 2708 was without merit. xxx [58] (Emphasis supplied.)

On the other hand, in Go v. Court of Appeals, the Court was confronted with a procedural void in the Revised Rules of Summary Procedure that justified the resort to a Rule 65 Petition in the RTC. In that case, the preliminary conference in the subject ejectment suit was held in abeyance by the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Iloilo City until after the case for specific performance involving the same parties shall have been finally decided by the RTC. The affected party appealed the suspension order to the RTC. In response, the adverse party moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it concerned an interlocutory order in a summary proceeding that was not the subject of an appeal. The RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss and subsequently directed the MTCC to proceed with the hearing of the ejectment suit, a ruling that was upheld by the appellate court.

In affirming the Decisions of the RTC and CA, the Supreme Court allowed the filing of a petition for certiorari against an interlocutory order in an ejectment suit, considering that the affected party was deprived of any recourse to the MTCC’s erroneous suspension of a summary proceeding. Retired Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban eloquently explained the procedural void in this wise:

Indisputably, the appealed [suspension] order is interlocutory, for “it does not dispose of the case but leaves something else to be done by the trial court on the merits of the case.” It is axiomatic that an interlocutory order cannot be challenged by an appeal. Thus, it has been held that “the proper remedy in such cases is an ordinary appeal from an adverse judgment on the merits incorporating in said appeal the grounds for assailing the interlocutory order. Allowing appeals from interlocutory orders would result in the ‘sorry spectacle’ of a case being subject of a counterproductive ping-pong to and from the appellate court as often as a trial court is perceived to have made an error in any of its interlocutory rulings. However, where the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief, the Court may allow certiorari as a mode of redress.”

Clearly, private respondent cannot appeal the order, being interlocutory. But neither can it file a petition for certiorari, because ejectment suits fall under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, Section 19(g) of which considers petitions for certiorari prohibited pleadings:

x x x                            x x x                            x x x

Based on the foregoing, private respondent was literally caught “between Scylla and Charybdis” in the procedural void observed by the Court of Appeals and the RTC. Under these extraordinary circumstances, the Court is constrained to provide it with a remedy consistent with the objective of speedy resolution of cases.

As correctly held by Respondent Court of Appeals, “the purpose of the Rules on Summary Procedure is ‘to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases without regard to technical rules.’ (Section 36, Chapter III, BP Blg. 129)” Pursuant to this objective, the Rules prohibit petitions for certiorari, like a number of other pleadings, in order to prevent unnecessary delays and to expedite the disposition of cases. In this case, however, private respondent challenged the MTCC order delaying the ejectment suit, precisely to avoid the mischief envisioned by the Rules.

Thus, this Court holds that in situations wherein a summary proceeding is suspended indefinitely, a petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion may be allowed. Because of the extraordinary circumstances in this case, a petition for certiorari, in fact, gives spirit and life to the Rules on Summary Procedure. A contrary ruling would unduly delay the disposition of the case and negate the rationale of the said Rules.[59] (Emphasis supplied.)

Contrary to the assertion of respondent Sunvar, the factual circumstances in these two cases are not comparable with respondents’ situation, and our rulings therein are inapplicable to its cause of action in the present suit. As this Court explained in Bayog, the general rule is that no special civil action for certiorari may be filed with a superior court from cases covered by the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure. Respondent Sunvar filed a certiorari Petition in an ejectment suit pending before the MeTC. Worse, the subject matter of the Petition was the denial of respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, which was necessarily an interlocutory order, which is generally not the subject of an appeal. No circumstances similar to the situation of the agricultural tenant-lessee in Bayog are present to support the relaxation of the general rule in the instant case. Respondent cannot claim to have been deprived of reasonable opportunities to argue its case before a summary judicial proceeding.

Moreover, there exists no procedural void akin to that in Go v. Court of Appeals that would justify respondent’s resort to a certiorari Petition before the RTC. When confronted with the MeTC’s adverse denial of its Motion to Dismiss in the ejectment case, the expeditious and proper remedy for respondent should have been to proceed with the summary hearings and to file its answer. Indeed, its resort to a certiorari Petition in the RTC over an interlocutory order in a summary ejectment proceeding was not only prohibited. The certiorari Petition was already a superfluity on account of respondent’s having already taken advantage of a speedy and available remedy by filing an Answer with the MeTC.

Respondent Sunvar failed to substantiate its claim of extraordinary circumstances that would constrain this Court to apply the exceptions obtaining in Bayog andGo. The Court hesitates to liberally dispense the benefits of these two judicial precedents to litigants in summary proceedings, lest these exceptions be regularly abused and freely availed of to defeat the very goal of an expeditious and inexpensive determination of an unlawful detainer suit. If the Court were to relax the interpretation of the prohibition against the filing of certiorari petitions under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, the RTCs may be inundated with similar prayers from adversely affected parties questioning every order of the lower court and completely dispensing with the goal of summary proceedings in forcible entry or unlawful detainer suits.

III

Reckoning the One-Year Period in Unlawful Detainer Cases

We now come to another legal issue underlying the present Petition – whether the Complaint filed by petitioners is properly an action for unlawful detainer within the jurisdiction of the MeTC or an accion publiciana lodged with the RTC. At the heart of the controversy is the reckoning period of the one-year requirement for unlawful detainer suits.

Whether or not petitioners’ action for unlawful detainer was brought within one year after the unlawful withholding of possession will determine whether it was properly filed with the MeTC. If, as petitioners argue, the one-year period should be counted from respondent Sunvar’s receipt on 03 February 2009 of the Final Notice to Vacate, then their Complaint was timely filed within the one-year period and appropriately taken cognizance of by the MeTC. However, if the reckoning period is pegged from the expiration of the main lease contract and/or sublease agreement, then petitioners’ proper remedy should have been an accion publiciana to be filed with the RTC.

The Court finds that petitioners correctly availed themselves of an action for unlawful detainer and, hence, reverses the ruling of the RTC.

Under the Rules of Court, lessors against whom possession of any land is unlawfully withheld after the expiration of the right to hold possession may – by virtue of any express or implied contract, and within one year after the unlawful deprivation – bring an action in the municipal trial court against the person unlawfully withholding possession, for restitution of possession with damages and costs.[60] Unless otherwise stipulated, the action of the lessor shall commence only after a demand to pay or to comply with the conditions of the lease and to vacate is made upon the lessee; or after a written notice of that demand is served upon the person found on the premises, and the lessee fails to comply therewith within 15 days in the case of land or 5 days in the case of buildings.[61]

In Delos Reyes v. Spouses Odenes,[62] the Court recently defined the nature and scope of an unlawful detainer suit, as follows:

Unlawful detainer is an action to recover possession of real property from one who illegally withholds possession after the expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any contract, express or implied. The possession by the defendant in unlawful detainer is originally legal but became illegal due to the expiration or termination of the right to possess. The proceeding is summary in nature, jurisdiction over which lies with the proper MTC or metropolitan trial court. The action must be brought up within one year from the date of last demand, and the issue in the case must be the right to physical possession. (Emphasis supplied.)

Hence, a complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer if it states the following elements:

1.       Initially, the possession of the property by the defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff.

2.       Eventually, the possession became illegal upon the plaintiff’s notice to the defendant of the termination of the latter’s right of possession.

3.       Thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived the plaintiff of the latter’s enjoyment.

4.       Within one year from the making of the last demand on the defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the Complaint for ejectment.[63]

“On the other hand, accion publiciana is the plenary action to recover the right of possession which should be brought in the proper regional trial court when dispossession has lasted for more than one year. It is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of realty independently of title. In other words, if at the time of the filing of the complaint, more than one year had elapsed since defendant had turned plaintiff out of possession or defendant’s possession had become illegal, the action will be, not one of forcible entry or illegal detainer, but an accion publiciana.”[64]

There are no substantial disagreements with respect to the first three requisites for an action for unlawful detainer. Respondent Sunvar initially derived its right to possess the subject property from its sublease agreements with TRCFI and later on with PDAF. However, with the expiration of the lease agreements on 31 December 2002, respondent lost possessory rights over the subject property. Nevertheless, it continued occupying the property for almost seven years thereafter. It was only on 03 February 2009 that petitioners made a final demand upon respondent Sunvar to turn over the property. What is disputed, however, is the fourth requisite of an unlawful detainer suit.

The Court rules that the final requisite is likewise availing in this case, and that the one-year period should be counted from the final demand made on 03 February 2009.

Contrary to the reasoning of the RTC,[65] the one-year period to file an unlawful detainer case is not counted from the expiration of the lease contract on 31 December 2002. Indeed, the last demand for petitioners to vacate is the reckoning period for determining the one-year period in an action for unlawful detainer. “Such one year period should be counted from the date of plaintiff’s last demand on defendant to vacate the real property, because only upon the lapse of that period does the possession become unlawful.”[66]

In case several demands to vacate are made, the period is          reckoned from the date of the last demand.[67] In Leonin v. Court of                  Appeals,[68]the Court, speaking through Justice Conchita Carpio Morales, reckoned the one-year period to file the unlawful detainer Complaint – filed on 25 February 1997 – from the latest demand letter dated 24 October 1996, and not from the earlier demand letter dated 03 July 1995:

Prospero Leonin (Prospero) and five others were co-owners of a 400-square meter property located at K-J Street, East Kamias, Quezon City whereon was constructed a two-storey house and a three-door apartment identified as No. 1-A, B, and C.  

Prospero and his co-owners allowed his siblings, herein petitioners, to occupy Apartment C without paying any rentals.

x x x                            x x x                            x x x

Petitioners further contend that respondent’s remedy is accion publiciana because their possession is not de facto, they having been authorized by the true and lawful owners of the property; and that one year had elapsed from respondent’s demand given on “July 3, 1995” when the unlawful detainer complaint was filed.

The petition fails.

Contrary to petitioners’ contention, the allegations in the complaint make out a case for unlawful detainer. Thus, respondent alleged, inter alia, that she is the registered owner of the property and that petitioners, who are tenants by tolerance, refused to vacate the premises despite the notice to vacate sent to them.  

Likewise, contrary to petitioners’ contention, the one-year period for filing a complaint for unlawful detainer is reckoned from the date of the last demand, in this case October 24, 1996, the reason being that the lessor has the right to waive his right of action based on previous demands and let the lessee remain meanwhile in the premises. Thus, the filing of the complaint on February 25, 1997 was well within the one year reglementary period.[69] (Emphasis supplied.)

From the time that the main lease contract and sublease agreements expired (01 January 2003), respondent Sunvar no longer had any possessory right over the subject property. Absent any express contractual renewal of the sublease agreement or any separate lease contract, it illegally occupied the land or, at best, was allowed to do so by mere tolerance of the registered owners – petitioners herein. Thus, respondent Sunvar’s possession became unlawful upon service of the final notice on 03 February 2009. Hence, as an unlawful occupant of the land of petitioners, and without any contract between them, respondent is “necessarily bound by an implied promise” that it “will vacate upon demand, failing which a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against them.”[70] Upon service of the final notice of demand, respondent Sunvar should have vacated the property and, consequently, petitioners had one year or until 02 February 2010 in which to resort to the summary action for unlawful detainer. In the instant case, their Complaint was filed with the MeTC on 23 July 2009, which was well within the one-year period.

The Court is aware that petitioners had earlier served a Notice to Vacate on 22 February 2008, which could have possibly tolled the one-year period for filing an unlawful detainer suit. Nevertheless, they can be deemed to have waived their right of action against respondent Sunvar and continued to tolerate its occupation of the subject property. That they sent a final Notice to Vacate almost a year later gave respondent another opportunity to comply with their implied promise as occupants by mere tolerance. Consequently, the one-year period for filing a summary action for unlawful detainer with the MeTC must be reckoned from the latest demand to vacate.

In the past, the Court ruled that subsequent demands that are merely in the nature of reminders of the original demand do not operate to renew the one-year period within which to commence an ejectment suit, considering that the period will still be reckoned from the date of the original demand.[71] If the subsequent demands were merely in the nature of reminders of the original demand, the one-year period to commence an ejectment suit would be counted from the first demand.[72] However, respondent failed to raise in any of the proceedings below this question of fact as to the nature of the second demand issued by the OSG. It is now too late in the proceedings for them to argue that the 2009 Notice to Vacate was a mere reiteration or reminder of the 2008 Notice to Vacate. In any event, this factual determination is beyond the scope of the present Rule 45 Petition, which is limited to resolving questions of law.

The Court notes that respondent Sunvar has continued to occupy the subject property since the expiration of its sublease on 31 December 2002. The factual issue of whether respondent has paid rentals to petitioners from the expiration of the sublease to the present was never raised or sufficiently argued before this Court. Nevertheless, it has not escaped the Court’s attention that almost a decade has passed without any resolution of this controversy regarding respondent’s possession of the subject property, contrary to the aim of expeditious proceedings under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure. With the grant of the instant Petition and the remand of the case to the MeTC for continued hearing, the Court emphasizes the duty of the lower court to speedily resolve this matter once and for all, especially since this case involves a prime property of the government located in the country’s business district and the various opportunities for petitioners to gain public revenues from the property.

WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the Petition for Review on Certiorari dated 14 February 2011, filed by petitioners Republic and National Power Corporation, which are represented here by the Privatization Management Office. The assailed Decision dated 01 December 2010 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 134, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 63, is DIRECTED to proceed with the summary proceedings for the unlawful detainer case in Civil Case No. 98708.

SO ORDERED.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Senior Associate Justice

Chairperson

 

 

       ARTURO D. BRION                             JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

           Associate Justice                                           Associate Justice

BIENVENIDO L. REYES

Associate Justice

         

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

            I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Senior Associate Justice

(Per Section 12, R.A. 296

The Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended)

---

[1] TCT Nos. 458364, 458365, 458366 and 458367.

[2] Petitioner Republic owns approximately 17,574 square meters of the subject property, while petitioner NPC owns 5,350 square meters. (NPC Resolution No. 2009-13 dated 09 March 2009; rollo, p. 73)

[3] Executive Order No. 323 dated 06 December 2000, Art. III, Sec. 2.

[4] Complaint dated 26 May 2009, pp. 3-4, para. 4; rollo, pp. 77-78.

[5] Contract of Lease between petitioners Republic and NPC with TRCFI; rollo, pp. 492-502.

[6] “The LESSEE [TRCFI] shall have the right, upon notice to the LESSORS [petitioners Republic and NPC], to sublease the whole or part of the leased land.” (Contract of Lease, Sec. VI, p. 6; rollo, p. 497)

[7] The entire subject property was subleased by TRCFI to respondent Sunvar in five agreements: (a) Agreement dated 18 August 1980 (rollo, pp. 503-519); (b) Sub-Lease Agreement dated 28 February 1982 (rollo, pp. 523-536); (c)  1983 Sub-Lease Agreement with illegible exact date (rollo, pp. 537-545); (d) Sub Lease Agreement dated 28 August 1983 (rollo, pp. 546-554); and (e) the remaining portions were also subleased by Sunvar, according to petitioners (Complaint dated 26 May 2009, p. 6, para. 9; rollo, p. 80)

[8] Complaint dated 26 May 2009, p. 6, para. 10; rollo, p. 80.

[9] (a) Agreement dated 18 August 1980, p. 9; rollo, p. 511 (22 years and 5 months from 31 July 1980); (b) Sub-Lease Agreement dated 28 February 1982, p. 3; rollo, p. 526 (20 years and 10 months from 28 February 1982); (c) 1983 Sub-Lease Agreement with illegible exact date, p. 2; rollo, p. 538 (19 years and 9 months from March 1983); and (d) Sub Lease Agreement dated 28 August 1983, p. 2; rollo, p. 547 (19 years and 3 months from September 1984).

[10] Complaint dated 26 May 2009, p. 6, para. 11; rollo, p. 80.

[11] Among these commercial buildings are what are known today as Premier Cinema, Mile Long Arcade, Makati Creekside Building, The Gallery Building and Sunvar Plaza. (Complaint dated 26 May 2009, pp. 6-7, para. 12; rollo, pp. 80-81)

[12] Complaint dated 26 May 2009, pp. 6-7, para. 12; rollo, pp. 80-81.

[13] Complaint dated 26 May 2009, p. 7, para. 13; rollo, p. 81.

[14] Respondent Sunvar’s Letter dated 26 April 2002 to PDAF; rollo, pp. 714-715.

[15] Respondent Sunvar’s Letter dated 26 April 2002 to the Office of the President, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and petitioner NPC; rollo, pp. 712-713.

[16] PDAF’s letter dated 10 May 2002; rollo, p. 716.

[17] “We wish to inform you that as of this date, our office has not received any response from the NG [petitioner Republic] nor the NPC. Consequently, since the renewal of our Sublease Contract is dependent on our Foundation’s own renewal of our Contract of Lease with the NG and the NPC, we cannot yet act on your letter or give favorable consideration on your desire to renew our Sublease Contract, notwithstanding the provisions thereof.

        “In view hereof, we likewise cannot accept any proposed rental payments from your office for the renewal term until such time that we already have an indication of the terms and conditions of any renewal acceptable to the NG and the NPC and, hence, our decision to return the check you sent to us.” (PDAF’s letter dated 10 May 2002; rollo, p. 716)

[18] Respondent Sunvar’s Letter dated 27 May 2002; rollo, p. 717.

[19] “We wish to inform you that in its last meeting on May 29, 2002, the NPC Board of Directors decided not to renew the contract of lease which is set to expire on December 31, 2002  …” (NPC Letter dated 03 June 2010 [rollo, p. 555];see also Complaint dated 26 May 2009, p. 7, para. 14 [rollo, p. 81])

[20] PDAF’s Letter dated 14 June 2002; rollo, p. 718.

[21] “You are hereby given by this Office notice that subject lease should no longer be renewed/extended.

        The Lease should end by January 2003, so that Notice of Non Renewal/ Non Extension should be given to Lessor not less than 6 months from said date given PDAF is now in the process of dissolution.” (Memorandum dated 13 June 2002; rollo, p. 556)

[22] Complaint dated 26 May 2009, p. 7, para. 15; rollo, p. 81.

[23] PDAF Letter dated 25 June 2002; rollo, p. 557.

[24] “As you very well know, this property is owned by the National Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the National Power Corporation, both of which has not extended or renewed, either expressly or impliedly, any lease [contract] involving the same in favor of any party, private or public. This being the case, your sublease agreement with the Philippine Development Alternative Foundation (PDAF) which expired on December 31, 2002 could not possibly have been renewed or extended. We hereby advise you to completely vacate said property within THIRTY (30) DAYS from receipt of this letter.” (OSG Letter dated 22 February 2008; rollo, p. 558)

[25] Registry Receipt No. 2826; rollo, p. 559.

[26] Complaint dated 26 May 2009, p. 9, para. 20; rollo, p. 83.

[27] “This is in reiteration of our first letter dated February 22, 2008 demanding that you vacate the property covered by your sublease agreements with the Philippine Development Alternative Foundation (PDAF) which expired on December 31, 2002, or more specifically, the parcel of land covered by TCT No. (458365) S-77242 located between De la Rosa and Arnaiz streets and parallel to Amorsolo street in Legaspi  Village, Makati City.”

        “Once again, we demand that you completely vacate said property within FIFTEEN (15) days from receipt of this letter, or we will be constrained to file the necessary legal action against you before the proper court.” (OSG Final Notice to Vacate dated 26 January 2009; rollo, p. 560)

[28] Inspection and Appraisal Report dated 02 April 2009; rollo, pp. 563-566.

[29] “As per instruction, please see attached copy of Inspection and Appraisal Report dated April 2, 2009 indicating a Fair Rental Value of Php 10,364,000 per month and an Income Loss of Php 630,123,700, respectively.” (PMO letter dated 02 April 2009; rollo, p. 562)

[30] Complaint dated 26 May 2009, p. 11; rollo, p. 85.

[31] Motion to Dismiss (for Lack of Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter) dated 07 August 2009; rollo, pp. 90-102.

[32] MeTC Order dated 16 September 2009, docketed as Civil Case No. 98708; rollo, pp. 116-117.

[33] Respondent Sunvar’s Omnibus Motion: (1) for Reconsideration (of the Order dated 16 September 2009); and (2) to Hold in Abeyance the Period to File an Answer dated 02 October 2009; rollo, pp. 118-141.

[34] MeTC Order dated 08 December 2009; rollo, pp. 162-163.

[35] Respondent Sunvar’s Verified Answer ad Cautelam dated 18 December 2009; rollo, pp. 678-711.

[36] Thereafter, MeTC Judge Rico Sebastian D. Liwanag voluntarily inhibited himself, and petitioners’ unlawful detainer suit was re-raffled to Judge Roberto P. Buenaventura.

[37] Petition for Certiorari dated 22 January 2010; rollo, pp. 164-208.

[38] Petitioners’ Comment (In Compliance with the Honorable Court’s Order Issued in Open Court on February 12, 2010) dated 18 February 2010; rollo, pp. 255-272.

[39] “Thus, in view of the extraordinary circumstances prevailing in the present petition, the Court resolves to relax the application of the rules and to proceed with the hearing on the petitioners’ application for TRO/Injunction on March 12, 2010 at 2:00 in the afternoon.” (RTC Order dated 08 March 2010; rollo, pp. 273-275)

[40] Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration dated 16 March 2010; rollo, pp. 276-295.

[41] RTC Order dated 29 April 2010; rollo, pp. 296-297.

[42] Respondent Sunvar’s Memorandum dated 10 June 2010 (rollo, pp. 805-843); Petitioners’ Memorandum dated 11 June 2010 (rollo, pp. 844-868).

[43] RTC Decision dated 01 December 2010; rollo, pp. 62-72.

[44] Petition for Review on Certiorari dated 14 February 2011; rollo, pp. 25-61.

[45] Rules of Court, Rule 41, Sec. 1 (g).

[46] “In any of the foregoing circumstances, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action as provided in Rule 65.” (Rules of Court, Rule 41, Sec. 1)

[47] “Appeal by Certiorari – In all cases where only questions of law are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45.’ (Rules of Court, Rule 41, Sec. 2 [c]).

[48] G.R. No. 169067, 06 October 2010, 632 SCRA 338.

[49] Id. at 344-345.

[50] Heirs of Nicolas S. Cabigas v. Limbaco, G.R. No. 175291, 27 July 2011, 654 SCRA 643, citing Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. CA, 327 Phil. 810, 825-826 (1996), citing Arroyo v. El Beaterio del Santissimo Rosario de Molo, 132 Phil. 9 (1968).

[51] Five Star Marketing Co., Inc., v. Booc, G.R. No. 143331, 05 October 2007, 535 SCRA 28.

[52] 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, Sec. 19 (g).

[53] Muñoz v. Yabut, Jr., G.R. No. 142676 & 146718, 06 June 2011, 650 SCRA 344.

[54] Petitioners’ Comment (In Compliance with the Honorable Court’s Order Issued in Open Court on February 12, 2010) dated 18 February 2010; rollo, pp. 255-272.

[55] RTC Order dated 08 March 2010; rollo, pp. 273-275.

[56] 327 Phil. 1019 (1996).

[57] 358 Phil. 214 (1998).

[58] 327 Phil. 1019, 1040-1041 (1996).

[59] 358 Phil. 214, 223-225 (1998).

[60] Rules of Court, Rule 70, Sec. 1.

[61] Rules of Court, Rule 70, Sec. 2.

[62] G.R. No. 178096, 23 March 2011, 646 SCRA 328, 334, citing Valdez, Jr. v. CA, 523 Phil. 39, 46 (2006).

[63] Macaslang v. Spouses Zamora, G.R. No. 156375, 30 May 2011, 649 SCRA 92, 104, citing Cabrera v. Getaruela, 586 SCRA 129, 136-137 (2009); see also Corpuz v. Spouses Agustin, G.R. No. 183822, 18 January 2012 and Delos Reyes v. Spouses Odones, G.R. No. 178096, 23 March 2011, 646 SCRA 328, 334-335, Iglesia Evangelica Metodista en Las Islas Filipinas (IEMELIF), Inc. v. Juane, G.R. No. 172447 & 179404, 18 September 2009, 600 SCRA 555, 562-563; Parsicha, v. Don Luis Dison Realty, Inc., G.R. No. 136409, 14 March 2008, 548 SCRA 273, 288;  Fernando v. Spouses Lim, G.R. No. 176282, 22 August 2008, 563 SCRA 147, 159-160.

[64] Canlas v. Tubil, G.R. No. 184285, 25 September 2009, 601 SCRA 147, 157.

[65] “Hence, in the present petition, upon the expiration of the term of the sublease on December 31, 2002, the private respondents (petitioners Republic and NPC) have one year to file an unlawful detainer case. The complaint having been filed beyond the prescribed one year period it cannot properly qualify as an action for unlawful detainer over which the lower court can exercise jurisdiction as it is an accion publiciana.” (RTC Decision dated 01 December 2010, p. 10; rollo, p. 71)

[66] Estate of Soledad Manantan v. Somera, G.R. No. 145867, 07 April 2009, 584 SCRA 81, 90, citing Sarmiento v. Court of Appeals, 320 Phil. 146, 154 (1995); Lopez v. David, Jr., G.R. No. 152145, 30 March 2004, 426 SCRA 535, 542;Varona v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124148, 20 May 2004, 428 SCRA 577, 583-584.

[67] Labastida v. Court of Appeals, 351 Phil. 162 (1998), citing Sy Oh v. Garcia, 28 SCRA 735 (1969) and Calubayan v. Pascual, 128 Phil. 160 (1967).

[68] G.R. No. 141418, 27 September 2006, 503 SCRA 423.

[69] Id, at 424-428.

[70] Spouses Beltran v. Nieves, G.R. No. 175561, 20 October 2010, 634 SCRA 242, 249, citing Calubayan v. Pascual, 128 Phil. 160, 163 (1967).

[71] Racaza v. Gozum, 523 Phil. 694 (2006), citing Desbarats v. Laureano, 124 Phil. 704 (1966).

[72] Spouses Cruz v. Spouses Torres, 374 Phil. 529 (1999), citing Pacis v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102676, 03 February 1992, min. res., cited in Summary of 1992 Supreme Court Rulings, Part III, by Atty. Daniel T. Martinez, p. 1847;Desbarats v. de Laureano, supra.

Source: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/194880.htm