Case Digest (G.R. No. 72740)
Facts:
- Spouses Marciano Ipapo and Benita Soriano Ipapo leased their property to Claudia P. Suarez and her late husband in 1975.
- The private respondent faithfully paid the rentals for the first two years but stopped making payments thereafter.
- The petitioners sent a letter of demand to the private respondent, but she refused to comply.
- As a result, the petitioners filed an ejectment case against the private respondent in the Municipal Trial Court of Meycauayan, Bulacan.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The Supreme Court granted the petition of the lessors, reversing the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court and reinstating the decision of the Regional Trial Court.
- The denial of the petitioners' motion for extension of time was improper because the ruling in the case of Habaluyas Enterpris...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The denial of the petitioners' motion for extension of time was improper because the ruling in the case of Habaluyas Enterprises vs. Japson had been clarified and modified.
- The ruling on the motion for extension should not be applied drastically as it had not yet become final and had been clarified and modified.
- The remand of the case to the trial court was not proper ...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. 72740)
Facts:
The case of Spouses Ipapo v. Intermediate Appellate Court involves a dispute between the petitioners, Spouses Marciano Ipapo and Benita Soriano Ipapo, and the private respondent, Claudia P. Suarez. The petitioners leased their property to the private respondent and her late husband, but the private respondent stopped paying the rentals. The petitioners filed an ejectment case against the private respondent for non-payment of rentals. The Municipal Trial Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, and this decision was affirmed by the Regional Trial Court. However, the Intermediate Appellate Court remanded the case to the Municipal Trial Court for further proceedings and the introduction of additional evidence. The petitioners filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the Intermediate Appellate Court. The petitioners argue that the denial of their motion for extension of time was improper and that the remand of the case was not justified.
Issue:
The main issues raised in the case are the denial of the petitioners' motion for extension of time and the remand of the case to the trial court.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners. They held that the denial of the motion for extension of time was improper because the ruling in the case of Habaluyas Enterprises vs. Japson, which was relied upon by the Intermediate Appellate Court, had been clarified and modified by a subsequent resolution. The Supreme Court stated that the ruling in Habaluyas Enterprise...