Case Digest (G.R. No. 146364)
Facts:
Colito T. Pajuyo v. Court of Appeals and Eddie Guevarra, G.R. No. 146364, June 03, 2004, the Supreme Court First Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Colito T. Pajuyo sued respondent Eddie Guevarra in an ejectment action in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Quezon City (Civil Case No. 12432) after Pajuyo demanded that Guevarra vacate a house and lot in Barrio Payatas which Pajuyo alleged he acquired in 1979 and on which he had constructed a house. The MTC, in a December 15, 1995 decision, ruled for Pajuyo, ordering Guevarra to vacate, to pay P300 monthly as reasonable compensation from the last demand, P3,000 attorneys’ fees and costs. Guevarra appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 81 (Civil Case No. Q-96-26943).
On November 11, 1996 the RTC affirmed the MTC decision. Guevarra received the RTC decision on November 29, 1996 and had until December 14, 1996 to appeal. On December 13, 1996 Guevarra (through counsel) filed with the Supreme Court a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review, stating his appeal involved pure questions of law; the Receiving Clerk stamped the motion December 13, 1996. Guevarra filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court on January 3, 1997. By resolution dated January 8, 1997, the Supreme Court referred the motion for extension to the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA’s Thirteenth Division, by resolution dated January 28, 1997, granted the motion for extension conditioned on its timeliness. The CA ordered Pajuyo to comment (Feb. 27, 1997), and on June 21, 2000 the CA issued a decision (CA-G.R. SP No. 43129) reversing the RTC and declaring the ejectment case “without factual and legal basis,” reasoning that both parties were squatters, that the agreement (Kasunduan) was commodatum not lease, and that Guevarra, as actual occupant, had priority under Proclamation No. 137 and the project’s Code of Policies. Pajuyo’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied on December 14, 2000.
Pajuyo filed a petition for review under Rule 45 in the Supreme Court challenging (inter alia) the CA’s grant of the extension, the CA’s acceptance of the petition despite a certification against forum-...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in granting Guevarra’s motion for extension of time to file a petition for review when the RTC decision had allegedly become final and executory?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in giving due course to Guevarra’s petition for review even though the certification against forum-shopping was signed by counsel instead of by Guevarra?
- Was the Kasunduan between Pajuyo and Guevarra a commodatum rather than a contract creating a landlord–tenant (or analogous) relationship, such that Guevarra’s continued possession was lawful?
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly apply the doctrine of pari delicto and treat both parties as squatters to justify leaving them “where they are”?
- Did the Court of Appeals properly decide the ejectment suit by applying the provisions of Proclamation No. 137 and the National Government Cent...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)