Sierra Grande Realty Corp. vs. Ragasa

G.R. No. 218543
Sierra Grande sued respondents for unlawful detainer over Roberts Street property. Courts ruled in its favor, but execution pending appeal was denied, prompting a Supreme Court petition. The Court upheld Sierra Grande’s capacity to sue, annulled lower court orders, and ruled immediate execution justified, citing abuse of discretion.
unlawful detainer case execution pending appeal immediate execution

Case Digest (G.R. No. 218543)

Facts:

Sierra Grande Realty Corporation v. Hon. Maria Rosario B. Ragasa, G.R. No. 218543, September 02, 2020, Supreme Court Third Division, Gaerlan, J., writing for the Court.

On October 25, 2012, petitioner Sierra Grande Realty Corporation filed a complaint for unlawful detainer (Civil Case No. M-PSY-12-15305CV) before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Pasay City against respondents Elmer Tan, Nancy Tan, Bernardino Villanueva, Golden Apple Realty Corporation, and Rosvibon Realty Corporation. The MeTC (initially Branch 47, later raffled to Branch 46) found for Sierra Grande in a Decision dated September 10, 2013, ordering the defendants to vacate and surrender possession, pay attorney’s fees and costs. The MeTC decision was appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City.

The RTC, presided by Judge Maria Rosario B. Ragasa, affirmed the MeTC Decision in a Decision dated April 30, 2014. Reconsideration was denied on August 15, 2014. On September 10, 2014, Sierra Grande moved for execution pending appeal. Judge Ragasa denied that motion in an Order dated October 29, 2014, explaining that execution pending appeal is an exception and must be grounded on “good reasons.” A motion for reconsideration was likewise denied in an Order dated April 8, 2015. Private respondents Elmer, Golden Apple and Rosvibon later filed petitions for review with the Court of Appeals (CA); Bernardino and Nancy did not, rendering the RTC decision final and executory as to them.

Sierra Grande then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 directly with this Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by Judge Ragasa in denying the motion for execution pending appeal. The Court acquired jurisdiction over petitioner upon filing; it served its Resolution of August 3, 2015 requiring respondents’ comments, which Elmer, Golden Apple and Rosvibon filed. The petition raised several procedural challenges (capacity to sue given SEC revocations of Sierra Grande’s registration; authority of Frank Villanueva to sign verification and sue on behalf of Sierra Grande; and the propriety of filing direct...(Pro-only)

Issues:

  • Did the Supreme Court acquire jurisdiction over the parties sufficient to proceed with the Rule 65 petition?
  • Did Sierra Grande have the legal capacity to file the certiorari petition and was Frank Villanueva authorized to sign the verification and sue on its behalf?
  • Was direct resort to the Supreme Court proper instead of filing first with the Court of Appeals?
  • Did Judge Ragasa commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the motion for execution pending...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

  • (Pro-only)

Ratio:

  • (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

  • (Pro-only)
Sign in to Unlock Full Digest

Philippine legal research, made clearer
AI-generated research aids. Verify with Full Text.
About Privacy Terms