G.R. No. 268216 - Caridad Pacheco vs. Jimmy F. Reyes

Jimmy F. Reyes (respondent) was the lawful possessor of the lot located at No. 39 Visayas Street, Group 3, Area B, Payatas, Quezon City, having acquired it from Benedicto Roquid by virtue of a Subrogation/Transfer of Rights and Improvement dated February 5, 2004.
Petitioner Caridad Pacheco and her late husband, Ramon Pacheco, Sr. (collectively spouses Pacheco), were lessees under a lease contract with respondent, agreeing to a monthly rental of PHP 6,000.00, payable every first day of the month beginning October 1, 2012.

Starting April 1, 2017, spouses Pacheco failed to pay monthly rentals and did not heed several demands to pay and vacate, including a demand letter dated August 5, 2017.
Another demand letter dated February 11, 2019, was personally tendered through UP-OLA Law Intern Juan Paolo M. Artiaga, demanding spouses Pacheco to pay PHP 66,000.00 in unpaid rentals and vacate the premises; spouses Pacheco allegedly refused to receive the letter.

Respondent filed a complaint with the Lupon ng Tagapamayapa, which spouses Pacheco allegedly ignored, leading to issuance of Certificate to File Action dated July 10, 2017.
Respondent filed an unlawful detainer and damages complaint on April 13, 2019, with summons served on spouses Pacheco on April 22, 2019.

Via counsel Atty. Romeo N. Bartolome, spouses Pacheco denied the claim, asserting ownership of the property through a Deed of Assignment from Acopiado estate and disputed respondent’s title.
They claimed respondent was pursuing a different property and denied receipt of the demand letters.
They prayed for dismissal based on prescription, alleging they had been in open and continuous possession for over 30 years and that the one-year period from last demand expired.

MeTC ruled in favor of respondent, finding all elements for unlawful detainer proven.
The court noted spouses Pacheco's admission of lease contract and default in payments.
Held that under Section 2(b), Rule 131, Rules of Court, tenants cannot deny the landlord’s title at commencement of tenancy.
Ordered spouses Pacheco to vacate premises, pay due rentals from February 2019, attorney’s fees of PHP 20,000.00, and costs.

RTC affirmed MeTC’s decision, reiterating estoppel of spouses Pacheco from denying respondent’s title.
Held spouses Pacheco’s possession became illegal upon default and demand to vacate.
Found spouse Pacheco’s denial of receipt of demand letter outweighed by positive testimony and affidavit of service.

Petitioner filed Petition for Certiorari assailing the RTC decision.
CA dismissed the petition outright in a Resolution dated July 26, 2022, citing that the proper remedy was an appeal under Rule 42, not certiorari.
Noted lack of verification and certification against forum shopping and failure to attach relevant pleadings.
Denied Motion for Reconsideration on May 8, 2023.

Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.
The central issue was the propriety of the CA’s dismissal.

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari filed by Petitioner.

Whether the Petition for Certiorari was the proper remedy instead of an appeal under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court.

Whether procedural infirmities such as non-compliance with verification and certification against forum shopping warranted dismissal.

Whether the Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court should be granted despite procedural defects and timeliness issues.