Case Digest (G.R. No. 191251)
Facts:
Edna Lopez Delicano, Eduardo Alberto Lopez, Mario Diez Cruz, Howard E. Meneses, and Corazon E. Meneses v. Pechaten Corporation, G.R. No. 191251, September 07, 2011, Supreme Court Second Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.The dispute arose over a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 95052 at 852 Vicente Cruz Street, Sampaloc, Manila owned by Pechaten Corporation (respondent). In June 1993 respondent entered into a two‑year lease with several lessees, who later waived their rights in favor of Virgilio Meneses. The lease expired on 30 June 1995; Virgilio ignored offers to renew or buy and failed to pay rent from July 1995 onwards.
On 6 October 1999 respondent demanded that Virgilio vacate and pay accrued rent; after refusal it filed an unlawful detainer action in the Manila Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). On 12 February 2002 the MeTC ruled for respondent, ordering Virgilio to vacate, to pay reasonable compensation (P1,200.00 monthly from July 1995 until vacation), attorney’s fees, and costs. The Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 37, affirmed that judgment in a Decision dated 30 May 2008, finding the complaint timely because the last demand was on 6 October 1999 and the complaint was filed within the one‑year reglementary period.
Separately, the City of Manila filed a complaint for expropriation on 12 August 2004 (Manila RTC‑Branch 11). Branch 11 issued a writ of possession and on 27 March 2008 issued an Order of Expropriation in favor of the City. After Virgilio’s death his heirs (the present petitioners) were substituted; they moved the RTC‑Branch 37 to reconsider its May 30, 2008 Decision, arguing the unlawful detainer action had become moot because of the writ of possession and the City’s alleged turnover of the property.
On 27 August 2008 RTC‑Branch 37 partially reconsidered and modified its prior ruling: it set aside the order requiring vacation as moot, limited reasonable compensation to July 1995–9 February 2005, and left attorney’s fees and costs. Pechaten Corporation sought review in the Court of Appeals (CA). In its Decision of 18 February 2009 the CA dismissed Pechaten’s petition and affirmed the RTC’s 27 August 2008 Order.
Pechaten filed motions for reconsideration and a supplemental motion attaching the CA‑Special Sixth Division’s decision in the related expropriation case, City of Manila v. Pechaten Corporation, which on 24 March 2009 reversed RTC‑Branch 11 and dismissed the eminent domain complaint; that decision became final and executory on 14 April 2009. The CA granted the supplemental motion and, in an Amended Decision promulgated 13 November 2009, reconsidered and set asid...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Are the petitioners still entitled to retain possession of the subject property despite the dismissal and finality of the related expropriation ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)