Case Digest (G.R. No. 198172)
Facts:
Regulus Development, Inc. v. Antonio dela Cruz, G.R. No. 198172, January 25, 2016, Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court.Regulus Development, Inc. (petitioner) owns the San Juan Apartments in Pasay City. Antonio dela Cruz (respondent) leased two units under month-to-month contracts with automatic renewals. The petitioner gave written notice to terminate the leases; after respondent refused to vacate, petitioner filed an ejectment complaint before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Pasay City on May 1, 2001.
The MTC ruled for the petitioner, ordering respondent to vacate and to pay rentals due. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed that ruling on appeal; pending the appeal respondent consigned monthly rentals with the RTC because the petitioner refused to receive them. The Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. SP No. 69504, later reversed and dismissed the ejectment case, a dismissal that became final and executory on March 19, 2003.
Despite the dismissal, petitioner moved before the RTC to withdraw the consigned rentals. In an order dated July 25, 2003 (denied recon. Nov. 28, 2003), the RTC allowed withdrawal of the deposits and ruled that the petitioner was still entitled to rentals for use and occupation under the lease contracts. The RTC issued a writ of execution on December 18, 2003. The respondent filed a Rule 65 certiorari petition with the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 81277) to assail the RTC orders to withdraw funds; the CA dismissed that petition, holding the RTC acted in its equity jurisdiction. This Court denied review in G.R. SP No. 171429 by resolution.
After an Alias Writ of Execution (April 26, 2007), petitioner moved to levy on respondent’s titled real property (TCT No. 136829) to satisfy unpaid rentals; the RTC granted the levy in an order dated June 30, 2008 and denied reconsideration on August 26, 2008. Respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 105290) seeking to nullify the levy; a public auction was nevertheless held on November 4, 2008, where petitioner was the highest bidder and a Certificate of Sale was registered. On January 7, 2010, respondent redeemed the property by paying the equivalent of the bid plus legal interest; the RTC released the redemption proceeds to petitioner.
Although respondent later moved to withdraw his CA petition as moot, the CA issued a decision dated November 23, 2010 reversing and setting aside the RTC levy orders, holding that the RTC lacked jurisdiction to levy because execution following a case dismissed on appeal must be pursued in the court ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the lack of a notarial seal on the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping in the CA petition fatal and requiring dismissal?
- Did respondent’s redemption of the subject property render the CA petition moot and academic?
- Did the RTC have jurisdiction to levy respondent’s real property to execute its equity orders arising from the withdr...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)