G.R. No. 175831 - People vs. Relanes

Petitioner Regulus Development, Inc. is the owner of San Juan Apartments located on San Juan Street, Pasay City.
Respondent Antonio Dela Cruz leased two units (Unit 2002-A and Unit 2002-B) of the apartment in 1993 and 1994 under contracts that provided for a one-month lease period with automatic renewals, unless terminated by written notice from the petitioner.

The petitioner sent a letter terminating the lease of the two units.
Owing to the respondent’s refusal to vacate, the petitioner filed a complaint for ejectment in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Pasay City on May 1, 2001.
The MTC ruled in favor of the petitioner, ordering the respondent to vacate and to pay rentals due until compliance.

The respondent appealed the MTC decision to the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
During the appeal, the respondent consigned the monthly rentals to the RTC due to the petitioner’s refusal to receive them.
The RTC affirmed the MTC decision in toto and denied the respondent’s motion for reconsideration.

In CA-G.R. SP No. 69504 the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed and dismissed the ejectment case, rendering the dismissal final and executory on March 19, 2003.
Petitioner’s motion to withdraw the funds consigned by the respondent was granted by the RTC on July 25, 2003.
The RTC later issued a writ of execution (December 18, 2003) and an Alias Writ of Execution (April 26, 2007), allowing the withdrawal of the deposits and the supersedeas bond covering rental dues.

Finding the withdrawn funds insufficient to cover rentals due from May 2001 to May 2004, the petitioner moved for the RTC to levy the respondent’s real property (TCT No. 136829).
The RTC granted the petition on June 30, 2008, and scheduled a public auction; the petitioner was declared the highest bidder.
The respondent redeemed the property on January 7, 2010, paying the equivalent of the bid price with legal interest, and the petitioner obtained an order for the release of funds.
On November 23, 2010, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC’s levy order, holding that the RTC lacked jurisdiction to levy on the respondent’s real property because it did not fall under execution pending appeal.

The petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari challenging the CA ruling in CA-G.R. SP No. 105290.
The petitioner raised three arguments:

The RTC’s release of consigned rentals and levy orders were issued based on its equity jurisdiction.
The respondent’s redemption rendered the case moot and academic.
The petition should be dismissed for lack of notarial seal on the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping.

The respondent countered, arguing that the levy remained null and void and that the alleged formal defect was untimely raised.

Whether the RTC had jurisdiction to levy on the respondent’s real property.
Whether the issue on jurisdiction could sustain a justiciable controversy despite the respondent’s redemption of the property.

Whether the lack of a notarial seal on the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping, in the petitioner’s CA petition, is fatal to the petition.