G.R. No. 218543 - Sierra Grande Realty Corp. vs. Ragasa

Sierra Grande Realty Corporation (petitioner) filed a complaint for unlawful detainer on October 25, 2012 before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Pasay City against private respondents Elmer Tan, Nancy Tan, Bernardino Villanueva, Golden Apple Realty Corporation, and Rosvibon Realty Corporation.
The complaint involved the possession of a property located at No. 2280 Roberts Street, Pasay City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 19801, which Sierra Grande claimed to be its registered property acquired originally by one of its incorporators.
Various allegations were made by Sierra Grande, including:

The property was originally purchased in 1975 by the late Sochi Villanueva for his ailing mother.
Temporary occupancy was granted to Sochi’s brothers with subsequent adjustments in occupancy to include Elmer and Nancy following their eviction from another property.
Upon Sochi’s death in 1985, a conspiracy involving Bernardino, Elmer, and Nancy, among others, was alleged to have fabricated documents (contracts to sell and deeds of absolute sale) transferring portions of the property to Golden Apple and Rosvibon.
The fraudulent nature of these transactions was previously nullified by a Supreme Court decision in a related case.

Sierra Grande had, through a letter dated September 28, 2012, demanded that the private respondents vacate the property; however, the respondents failed to comply, forcing Sierra Grande to file the complaint.

The MeTC rendered a Decision on September 10, 2013, ruling in favor of Sierra Grande on the ground that the respondents occupied the property merely by tolerance.
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 108, under Judge Maria Rosario B. Ragasa, affirmed the MeTC decision in full on April 30, 2014.
Sierra Grande subsequently filed a motion for execution pending appeal on September 10, 2014.
Judge Ragasa denied the motion on October 29, 2014, emphasizing that execution pending appeal is an exception that requires compelling “good reasons” to override potential injuries should the judgment be reversed.
Sierra Grande’s motion for reconsideration of the denial was reaffirmed by Judge Ragasa on April 8, 2015.

Sierra Grande directly filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to annul the orders denying its motion for execution pending appeal.
The petition argued that the denial amounted to grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by Judge Ragasa.
Issues regarding the proper exercise of jurisdiction over the parties, especially given that some respondents did not file comments or were not properly served, were addressed; however, the Court found that the matters concerning unactioned respondents did not affect the merits of the case.

Private respondents questioned Sierra Grande’s capacity to sue as a juridical person on the ground that its certificate of registration had been revoked on two separate occasions.
The respondents further challenged the authority of Frank Villanueva, acting as General Manager, to sign the verification and certification against forum shopping without a board resolution.
The Court upheld Sierra Grande’s capacity to sue, noting that the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) executed by the majority of its directors sufficed to authorize Frank’s representation.

The respondents argued that the petition should have been filed with the Court of Appeals instead of the Supreme Court, citing the hierarchy of courts.
The Court recognized that while generally petitions for extraordinary writs should follow the hierarchical order, certain exceptions (e.g., issues of urgency, transcendental importance, or pure questions of law) may justify direct recourse to the Supreme Court.
The Court determined that the time element and the nature of the ejectment case warranted direct intervention.

Whether Judge Maria Rosario B. Ragasa committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when she denied Sierra Grande’s motion for execution pending appeal despite the clear provisions mandating immediate execution in unlawful detainer cases.
Whether the denial of the motion for execution pending appeal, given the mandatory and ministerial nature of execution under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure and Section 21, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, was proper.
Whether Sierra Grande, despite challenges regarding its certificate of registration and the absence of a board resolution, had the capacity to sue through Frank Villanueva based on the SPA and existing jurisprudence.
Whether a petition for certiorari against interlocutory orders denying execution pending appeal is appropriate under circumstances where there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.