Case Digest (G.R. No. 194880)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines and National Power Corporation, represented by the Privatization Management Office, owned the land covered by TCT No. 458365 and leased it to TRCFI, which subleased most of the parcel to Sunvar Realty Development Corporation; the main lease and the subleases expired on 31 December 2002, but Sunvar remained in possession and made improvements. Petitioners served a notice to vacate in February 2008 and a final notice on 03 February 2009, filed an unlawful detainer complaint in the Metropolitan Trial Court on 23 July 2009, while Sunvar sought a Rule 65 petition in the RTC after the MeTC denied its motion to dismiss; the RTC granted certiorari and dismissed the MeTC complaint, prompting this Rule 45 petition.
Issues:
- Was petitioners' resort to a petition under Rule 45 proper?
- Did the RTC err in entertaining and granting a Rule 65 petition against an interlocutory order in a summary proceeding governed by the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, Sec. 19(g)?
- Should petitioners' action be treated as an unlawful detainer within the MeTC's jurisdiction or as an accion publiciana in the RTC, i.e., from what date is the one-year period reckoned?
Ruling:
The Court granted the Rule 45 petition, held that the RTC erred in taking cognizance of and deciding the prohibited Rule 65 petition, and reversed and set aside the RTC Decision of 01 December 2010. The Court directed the Metropolitan Trial Court, Makati City, Branch 63, to proceed with the summary proceedings for the unlawful detainer case.
Ratio:
The Court found petitioners' use of Rule 45 proper because the questions raised were purely questions of law concerning the application of the Rules on Summary Procedure. The Court reiterated that the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, Sec. 19(g) expressly prohibits certiorari under Rule 65 against interlocutory orders in summary proceedings and that the narrow exceptions in Bayog and Go did not obtain here. On the merits, the Court ruled that the one-year period for an unlawful detainer is reckoned from the date of the last demand to vacate—here, the final notice of 03 February 2009—so the MeTC action was timely.
Doctrine:
- Rule 45 is the proper remedy to the Supreme Court when only questions of law are involved.
- The 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, Sec. 19(g) prohibits filing special civil actions under Rule 65 against interlocutory orders in summary proceedings.
- Exceptions permitting relief by Rule 65 in summary proceedings are narrowly applied and require extraordinary circumstances such as those in Bayog and Go.
- The one-year reglementary period for an unlawful detainer suit is reckoned from the last demand to vacate; if within one year the summary remedy lies in the municipal or metropolitan trial court, otherwise the remedy is an accion publiciana.