G.R. No. 79119 - Day vs. Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City, Branch XIII

Victorino E. Day, the petitioner, is the registered owner of a parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-2667, located at Tomas Claudio St., Zamboanga City.
Private respondent Go Chu is in possession of a building constructed on said lot, covering an area of 101 square meters.

Petitioner repeatedly demanded that respondent peacefully vacate and remove the portion of the building encroaching on his land.
Due to respondent’s refusal, on April 17, 1982, petitioner initiated a formal complaint with the Office of the Barangay Chairman, Zone I, Zamboanga City, seeking resolution at the grassroots level.
After attempts at conciliation failed, the Barangay Chairman, on April 20, 1982, issued a certification stating that conciliation had not yielded any settlement.

Discussions regarding the dispute continued periodically through 1982, 1983, and 1984.
On October 16, 1984, petitioner agreed to accept a payment of ₱1,000.00 from respondent as rental for the use of the property from 1979 to December 1984, which respondent later claimed to be evidence of a lease contract.
Petitioner, however, disputed the existence of any formal or even verbal lease agreement with respondent.

On January 15, 1985, petitioner renewed his demand for respondent to remove the building.
Due to the continued and adamant refusal of respondent, on March 25, 1985, petitioner filed an action for unlawful detainer coupled with an application for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction in the Municipal Trial Court.

On April 15, 1986, the Regional Trial Court rendered a decision in favor of petitioner, which included:

Ordering respondent to remove the encroaching portion of his building.
Directing respondent to pay monthly compensation amounting to ₱950.00 from January 1986 until the premises were vacated by respondent.
Awarding petitioner attorney’s fees of ₱5,000.00 and costs of the action.

On April 23, 1986, without filing a motion for reconsideration, respondent initiated an original action for certiorari against Judge Cabato and petitioner, challenging the earlier Municipal Trial Court decision.
A temporary restraining order was issued pending the preliminary injunction application, and subsequent pleadings were filed by both parties outlining their positions.
On May 27, 1986, the respondent court issued an order resolving some preliminary issues in favor of petitioner while setting aside the writ of preliminary injunction and scheduling the main hearing for June 24, 1986.
During the June 24 hearing, additional arguments were allowed, yet the parties relied primarily on the record, culminating in further orders.

On July 8, 1986, the respondent court issued an order granting the petition for certiorari and setting aside Judge Cabato’s decision from the Municipal Trial Court, directing the parties to submit their dispute before the Lupong Tagapayapa in accordance with PD 1508.
Petitioner’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied on June 25, 1987, prompting the present petition for review.

Whether the respondent court may modify or reverse its own order (of May 27, 1986) after the expiration of fifteen (15) days from its issuance, particularly considering that the order had rendered the main petition as “lacking in merit” yet left “certain matters” to be resolved.
Whether Section 33 of B.P. 129 permits the plaintiff in an unlawful detainer action to apply for a writ of preliminary injunction.
Whether the prior conciliation proceedings mandated by P.D. 1508 are applicable to petitioner’s suit in the Municipal Trial Court, given that the action falls within the exceptions provided by the law.
Whether the respondent court may entertain the petition for review on certiorari as a mode of appeal when the proper remedy is an ordinary appeal under Section 22 of B.P. 129.
Whether, in a petition for certiorari, the respondent court may consider or decide upon procedural questions, or questions of fact or substance that have already been resolved by the lower court.
Whether the respondent court may grant a writ of certiorari on grounds other than those specified under Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.