Title
Atillo vs. Bombay
Case
G.R. No. 136096
Decision Date
Feb 7, 2001
Petitioner failed to pay rent, claimed property ownership dispute, and appealed ejectment case. SC upheld CA's dismissal for non-compliance with mandatory procedural rules, denying petition.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 136096)

Facts:

Lease Agreement and Non-Payment of Rentals

  • Petitioner Nelia Atillo entered into a Lease Agreement with respondent Buenaventura Bombay for a unit in the Alto Commercial Building in Mayamot, Antipolo, Rizal. The lease was for one year, starting May 1, 1988, and renewable upon mutual consent.
  • Petitioner failed to pay rentals starting January 1995, prompting respondent to issue a written demand on August 15, 1994, for her to pay and vacate the premises. Petitioner refused to comply.

Ownership Dispute

  • Petitioner claimed that the building was owned by the heirs of Tomas Escaraman, to whom ownership was transferred by Nide Marie Bombay under a ten-year lease agreement or "Kasunduan."
  • Petitioner argued that respondent no longer had rights over the property and was guilty of illegal detainer. She entered into a new lease agreement with the heirs of Tomas Escaraman and paid them rent, refusing to pay respondent.

Ejectment Case

  • Respondent filed an ejectment case against petitioner in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Antipolo, Rizal. The MTC dismissed the case, ruling that respondent was not the proper party in interest.
  • Respondent appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which reversed the MTC decision, awarded back rentals to respondent, and ordered petitioner to vacate the premises.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals

  • Petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA), but the CA dismissed it for failure to attach pleadings and material portions of the record, as required under Rule 42, Section 2(d) of the Rules of Court.
  • Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting her to file this petition before the Supreme Court.

Issue:

  1. Whether the requirement to attach pleadings and material portions of the record under Rule 42, Section 2(d) of the Rules of Court is mandatory, warranting dismissal for non-compliance.
  2. Whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition despite petitioner’s argument that the requirement is directory and discretionary.
  3. Whether the award of back rentals by the RTC was justified.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA’s dismissal of petitioner’s appeal. The Court held that:

  1. The requirement to attach pleadings and material portions of the record under Rule 42, Section 2(d) is mandatory. Non-compliance is a sufficient ground for dismissal under Section 3 of the same rule.
  2. Petitioner failed to substantially comply with the requirement, as she did not attach critical documents such as the Lease Agreement, "Kasunduan," and other evidence supporting her claims.
  3. The CA acted within its discretion in dismissing the petition, as the lack of supporting documents made it impossible to determine the merits of the case.

Ratio:

  • (Unlock)

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.