Case Digest (G.R. No. 86344)
Facts:
In Emiliano D. Joven and Cicero V. Garcia v. Spouses Raul L. Tulio and Cristina Panganiban Tulio (G.R. No. 204567, August 4, 2021), the petitioners leased from the respondents a commercial lot registered under TCT No. 429707-12 in San Fernando, Pampanga, for a 15-year term from November 1, 1999 to October 31, 2013. The petitioners built a two-storey mall at their own cost but fell behind in rental payments, issuing two dishonored checks and leaving an unpaid balance of ₱1,000,000. On June 3, 2000, the respondents served a Notice of Eviction, barricaded the mall’s administrative office, and reassumed possession with security guards. The petitioners then filed a forcible entry case in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), which found no forcible entry but ordered reimbursement of advance rentals (₱2,250,000) and half the cost of improvements. Both sides appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC first affirmed and modified the MTCC decision by reducing the rental reCase Digest (G.R. No. 86344)
Facts:
- Contract of Lease and Improvements
- Spouses Raul L. Tulio and Cristina Panganiban Tulio (respondents) owned a commercial land in San Fernando, Pampanga (TCT No. 429707-12).
- On August 14, 1997, respondents leased the property to Emiliano D. Joven and Cicero V. Garcia (petitioners) for 15 years (Nov. 1, 1999–Oct. 31, 2013).
- Petitioners constructed a two-storey commercial building (J-G Shopping Mall) at an alleged cost of ₱22 million.
- Alleged Default and Eviction
- For the first lease year (Nov. 1999–June 2000), petitioners paid only ₱2 million of the ₱3 million rental obligation, leaving ₱1 million unpaid; they issued two dishonored checks (₱1 million and ₱250,000).
- On June 3, 2000, respondents, with counsel and security guards, served a Notice of Eviction, barricaded the administration office, informed tenants of resumed possession, and ousted petitioners’ guards.
- Petitioners filed a complaint for forcible entry in MTCC No. 8220, City of San Fernando.
- Proceedings Below
- MTCC Decision (Feb. 17, 2003):
- Held eviction lawful; no forcible entry.
- Ordered respondents to reimburse petitioners ₱2.25 million (advance rentals) and one-half of improvement costs; dismissed respondents’ counterclaim.
- RTC Branch 43 Judgment (May 30, 2005):
- Affirmed lawful possession.
- Reduced refund of advance rentals to ₱500,000.
- Ruled improvements became respondents’ property without reimbursement.
- RTC Reconsideration Judgment (Oct. 6, 2011):
- Declared eviction a forcible entry.
- Ordered respondents to reimburse one-half of improvements (₱12 million) and advance rentals plus VAT.
- RTC Modified Order (May 15, 2012):
- Restored respondents to lawful possession as of June 3, 2000.
- Confirmed improvements belong to respondents without pay.
- Ordered refund of ₱250,000 only; remanded for execution.
- CA Dismissals
- Petitioners filed a Rule 42 Petition for Review in the CA.
- CA Resolution (July 24, 2012): outright dismissal due to:
- Affidavit of service’s notary missing commission number, location, address.
- Verification and certification defective (signed by one petitioner; notarial defects).
- Failure to attach copies of MTCC and RTC pleadings.
- CA Second Resolution (Nov. 13, 2012): denied motion for reconsideration.
- Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via Rule 45 certiorari.
Issues:
- Did the CA err in dismissing the petition on procedural/technical grounds?
- Did petitioners’ verification and certification against forum shopping substantially comply with the Rules?
- Was the absence of certain attachments a proper basis for outright dismissal?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)