Facts:

The case involves the petitioner Marcelo L. Ongsitco, who was the lessee of a property located at 2044 Velasquez, Tondo, Manila, originally owned by Catalino Luciano. The property was foreclosed by China Banking Corporation due to Luciano's failure to pay his loan, after which it was purchased by the private respondent, United Plaza Realty Corporation ("United"). No formal written lease agreement existed between Ongsitco and United. Following non-payment of rents, United initiated an ejectment suit against Ongsitco in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila (MTC), leading to a judgment favoring United. The MTC ordered Ongsitco and any persons claiming under him to vacate the premises and awarded monetary damages to United.

Ongsitco appealed the MTC judgment to the Regional Trial Court of Manila (RTC), which affirmed the lower court's ruling, modifying the amount for monthly rentals. After a delay beyond the statutory period for filing a petition for review in th

...

Facts:

Background of the Property and Parties

• Marcelo L. Ongsitco was the lessee of a property located at 2044 Velasquez Street, Tondo, Manila, originally owned by Catalino Luciano.
• The property was foreclosed by China Banking Corporation for failure of the owner to pay his loan and was subsequently acquired by United Plaza Realty Corporation.
• No written lease agreement was executed between Ongsitco and United Plaza Realty Corporation.

Initiation of the Ejectment Suit

• United Plaza Realty Corporation instituted an ejectment suit against Ongsitco for non-payment of rentals and other alleged breaches.
• The Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila rendered a decision ordering:
• The defendant and persons claiming under him to vacate the premises.
• Payment of unpaid rent from October 1982 to August 1991.
• Payment of a monthly rental from September 1991 until full vacation of the premises.
• Attorney’s fees and court costs.

Appeal and Subsequent Modification

• On appeal, the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Branch 40) issued a modified decision:
• It affirmed the order to vacate the premises.
• It maintained the payment of unpaid rental amounts for the specified period.
• It reduced the monthly rental to a lower amount.
• It reiterated the award for attorney’s fees and court costs.
• The decision of the RTC essentially became final as no proper petition for review was filed within the reglementary period.

Filing of the Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus

• Petitioners, represented by the heirs of the deceased Marcelo Ongsitco, filed a petition under Rule 45 seeking to set aside the RTC decision and the Court of Appeals’ ruling.
• The petition was filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period for a petition for review in ejectment cases.
• Subsequent to the filing, a “Motion for Substitution of Heirs” was filed following the death of Marcelo Ongsitco on April 14, 1995.
• Respondents pointed out inconsistencies in the dating of the petition and corresponding documents, noting that the petition’s certification occurred after Ongsitco’s death.

Respondents’ Arguments and Lower Court Findings

• The respondent court held that the lease was terminated by the death of Marcelo Ongsitco, leaving his heirs without any colorable right to occupy the premises.
• It was emphasized that certiorari is not a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal.
• The lower court ruled against the petition on multiple grounds, including errors in mode of appeal and the lack of validity in claims for substantial improvements made on the leased premises.

Issue:

Whether the petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus may serve as a substitute remedy for an untimely or lost appeal in ejectment cases.

• The petition contends that exceptions to the general rule should allow review despite the lapse in filing a proper petition for review.
• The issue extends to whether a lost appeal, due to counsel’s negligence, warrants an extraordinary remedy.

Whether the leasehold rights are inheritable, allowing the heirs of the deceased lessee to claim any continuation of the lease.

• Petitioners challenged the respondent court’s reliance on the doctrine that a lease ceases upon the death of the lessee.
• They cited a contrary precedent holding that leasehold rights are inheritable.

Whether the petitioner (or his heirs) is entitled to recover expenses amounting to P5 million for substantial and valuable improvements made on the leased premises.

• The petition argues that non-recovery of these expenses would result in unjust enrichment to the respondent.
• The underlying issue includes whether a lessee, as opposed to a builder in good faith, can claim such reimbursement.

• Whether the negligence and error of counsel in choosing the wrong mode of appeal should bind the petitioner and effectuate a reversal of the lower court’s decision.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)