G.R. No. 157309 - Velasquez vs. Solidbank Corp.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 157309)
Advanced

Facts:

Parties and property relationship

Petitioner, Atty. Manuel D. Melotindos, was the lessee of the ground floor of a house located at No. 577 Julio Nakpil Street in Malate, Manila.
Respondent, Melecio Tobias, was the owner/lessor of the premises and was then residing in Canada.
The lease began in 1953 and was on a month-to-month basis.

Respondent’s demands to adjust rental and to recover possession

In the last quarter of 1995, respondent demanded that petitioner either:

Pay an increased rate of monthly rentals, or
Vacate the premises so respondent could use the house together with his mother during her regular medical check-up in Manila.

For two (2) years, nothing resulted from the demand to vacate.
In 1997, respondent insisted on raising the rental fee again.

Premises repairs and second demand to restore possession

On 1 June 1998, respondent asked petitioner to restore the premises for essential repairs of its dilapidated structure.
Respondent did not offer petitioner the option to pay higher rentals.
The renovation/repair was commenced but had to stop midway because petitioner:

Refused to vacate the portion he occupied; and
Neglected to pay the lease for four (4) months from May to August 1998.

Because of the refusal and nonpayment, on 19 October 1998, respondent demanded:

Payment of the rental arrears; and
Restoration of the house to him.

Ejectment complaint and MeTC judgment

On 3 February 1999, since petitioner insisted on keeping possession but did not pay rental for January 1999 (even though he had already settled the arrears for the four (4) months), respondent was compelled to file an ejectment case.
The ejectment complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 162325-CV.
The MeTC-Br. 28 of Manila rendered a decision in favor of respondent:

Ordered petitioner to vacate the leased premises.
Ordered petitioner to pay rental arrears of P60,000.00 as of December 1998 and P6,000.00 for every month thereafter until he finally restored possession to respondent.
Ordered petitioner to pay attorney’s fees of P15,000.00 and the costs of suit.

RTC appellate disposition

In Civil Case No. 99-94798, the RTC-Br. 30 of Manila upheld the MeTC decision in toto.
The RTC denied petitioner’s subsequent motion for reconsideration for failure to set the date of hearing not later than ten (10) days from filing.

Court of Appeals proceedings and alleged late motion for reconsideration

Petitioner filed a petition for review in the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 58420.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the assailed decision in its entirety.
The Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration as late filed, filed on 30 October 2000, beyond the fifteen (15)-day period from receipt of the Court of Appeals decision on 9 October 2000, as shown by the registry return receipt.
The Court of Appeals decision was promulgated on 29 September 2000 (with subsequent procedural citations stated in the decision).

Supreme Court petition and procedural incidents

Petitioner filed a petition for review, asserting:

The order to eject was illegal because he allegedly was always up to date in paying rentals;
The trial court had an obligation to extend his lease by five (5) more years, citing Art. 1687 of the Civil Code; and
His motion for reconsideration in the Court of Appeals was not late because his actual receipt was 16 October 2000, not 9 October 2000.

On 22 August 2001, after respondent filed his Comment, the Supreme Court required petitioner to file a Reply.
Petitioner did not file the Reply. Instead, petitioner moved for issuance of a temporary restraining order to enjoin enforcement of the MeTC judgment.
On 28 November 2001, the Supreme Court denied the motion for lack of merit and reiterated the requirement to file the Reply.
On 1 April 2002, when it became evident petitioner had no intention to file the Reply, the Supreme Court required him to show cause why disciplinary measures should not be taken for noncompliance.
On 27 May 2002, petitioner filed a Manifestation seeking compassion, praying that the petition be dismissed as moot and academic because he allegedly had already been evicted.

Supreme Court’s view of petitioner’s procedural stance

The Supreme Court held that the petition could not be treated as a “done proceeding” merely because petitioner asked for denial on the ground of mootness.
The Supreme Court characterized the Manifestation as an attempt to withdraw the appeal, which the Court held does not occur as a matter of right after a responsive pleading is filed.
The Supreme Court held that it had not approved any withdrawal and therefore petitioner could not disregard the Court’s prior resolutions.
The Supreme Court noted that, apart from petitioner’s old age and alleged ill health, his defiance might have warranted contempt.

Determination of finality and res judicata

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals decision became final and executory when it was sought to be reconsidered in the appellate court and when brought before the Supreme Court by the instant petition.
The Supreme Court relied on the Court of Appeals record showing petitioner received the Court of Appeals decision on 9 October 2000 (via registry return receipt) and filed the motion for reconsideration only on 30 October 2000.
The Supreme Court held the motion was beyond the fifteen (15)-day reglementary period and did not toll finality.

Landlord-tenant merits acknowledged by the lower courts

The Supreme Court stated that the evidence and petitioner’s pleadings confirmed petitioner’s default in paying rental fees for more than three (3) months in 1999 and 1998 prior to filing the ejectment complaint.
The Supreme Court found sufficient basi...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

Whether petitioner’s petition for review should be treated as moot and academic due to alleged eviction

Whether petitioner could disregard prior Supreme Court orders requiring pleadings by claiming mootness after alleged eviction.

Whether petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in the Court of Appeals was timely

Whether petitioner received the Court of Appeals decision on 9 October 2000 (as shown by registry return receipt) or on 16 October 2000 (as claimed by petitioner).
Whether the motion for reconsideration filed on 30 October 2000 fell within the fifteen (15)-day reglementary period from receipt.

Whether the Court of Appeals decision had become final and executory and could be treated as res judicata

Whether petitioner could still raise matters already covered by final judgment.

Whether petitioner was entitled to remain in possession notwithstanding the ejectment

Whether petitioner was “always up to date” in paying rental fees, as alleged by petitioner.
Whether the courts could consider respondent’s good-faith need for the property and need for repair/renovation as legal grounds to eject.

Whether petitioner was entitled to lease extension under Art. 1687 of the Civil Code

Whether Art. 1687 grants the lessee an absolute right to extensi...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Supreme Court E-Library

Case Digest (G.R. No. 157309)
Concise Detailed

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 157309)
Advanced

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 157309) Concise Detailed

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 157309) Advanced

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 157309)
Concise Detailed

Case Digest (G.R. No. 157309)
Advanced