Case Digest (G.R. No. 150642)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 150642)
Facts:
Benjamin G. Navalta v. Marcelo S. Muli, G.R. No. 150642, October 23, 2006, Supreme Court Second Division, Sandoval‑Gutierrez, J., writing for the Court. This case arose from a property dispute governed procedurally by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.On October 21, 1997, respondent Marcelo S. Muli executed a “Deed of Sale Under Pacto de Retro” in favor of petitioner Benjamin G. Navalta, conveying respondent’s 2/4 share of a 144.40‑sq.m. parcel (TCT No. 216508) for P325,000, with a contractual right for respondent to repurchase the property within six months (until April 21, 1998). Respondent failed to repurchase within the period, and petitioner sent a demand letter on June 27, 1998, calling for respondent to vacate; respondent did not comply.
Instead of vacating, respondent filed a complaint for annulment of the contract in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 14, Manila (Civil Case No. 98‑89928) on July 29, 1998, alleging that the transaction was in truth an equitable mortgage. Petitioner filed an unlawful detainer action in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 6, Manila (Civil Case No. 162403‑CV) on February 11, 1999, claiming respondent’s possessory right had terminated and seeking ejectment, damages and attorney’s fees.
The MeTC rendered judgment for petitioner on May 26, 1999, ordering respondent’s ejectment, monthly compensation, and attorney’s fees, finding respondent’s occupancy was terminable on demand. On appeal the RTC, Branch 8, Manila, reversed, holding petitioner could not exercise possessory rights over any specific portion because the parcel had not been partitioned among co‑heirs; therefore ejectment could not be maintained (citing Sec. 1, Rule 70, Rules of Court). Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the RTC was denied on July 11, 2001.
Petitioner then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals under Rule 42 (CA‑G.R. SP No. 65789). The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition in a July 30, 2001 Resolution for failure to attach to the petition the pleadings and other material portions of the record required by Section 2, Rule 42 (specifically the complaint, answer, position papers and memoranda). Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration attaching the previously omitted documents, but the Court of Appeals again denied relief in an October 18, 2001 Resolution. Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari contesting the Court of Appeals’ dismissal.
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing petitioner’s Rule 42 petition for review on the ground that he failed to attach the pleadings and other material portions of the record required by Section 2 of Rule 42 and in refusing to reinstate the petition after petitioner submitted those papers?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)