G.R. No. 95818 - Sy vs. Court of Appeals

On November 8, 1988, petitioner Leopoldo Sy filed an unlawful detainer case against private respondent Emeterio M. Calugay “and/or all persons claiming under him” with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch XIX, docketed as Civil Case No. 127019-CV.
Private respondents subsequently answered with a Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, to Suspend Proceedings, asserting that there was a pending action for annulment of sale and reconveyance (Civil Case No. 88-47264) involving their right to repurchase the subject property.

At the preliminary conference, the trial judge notified the parties that the case fell under the Rule on Summary Procedure and ordered submission of position papers and affidavits.
Private respondents filed an Urgent Motion to Hold the Case in Abeyance based on an alleged prejudicial issue regarding ownership, which the trial court denied, along with a later motion for reconsideration.
On November 27, 1989, the trial court rendered judgment ordering the ejectment of the respondent and persons claiming under him, the payment of specified rental arrearages, monthly rentals until vacatur, attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.

On December 8, 1989, private respondents filed a motion for reconsideration against the judgment, which was denied on February 6, 1990, due to the prohibition of such pleading under the Rule on Summary Procedure.
Private respondents then filed a notice of appeal on February 19, 1990; however, it was dismissed on March 2, 1990, as being filed out of time because the motion for reconsideration did not suspend the running of the appeal period.
On March 12, 1990, a writ of “Ejectment Execution” was issued commanding the sheriff to enforce the judgment, and on March 16, 1990, a notice of levy was served—scheduling the sale of respondents’ properties on March 21, 1990.

After filing an original petition on September 8, 1989, private respondents later filed an amended petition for certiorari and prohibition on April 30, 1990, with a prayer for a preliminary injunction or restraining order against several orders and decisions of the metropolitan trial court.
This amended petition sought to annul:

The denial of their motion to hold the proceedings in abeyance (Order dated June 16, 1989).
The denial of their motion for reconsideration (Order dated August 28, 1989 and February 6, 1990).
The ejectment decision (November 27, 1989).
The denial of their appeal (Order dated March 2, 1990).
The subsequent issuance of the writ of execution and notice of levy.

In an order dated June 18, 1990, Judge Manuel E. Yuzon of the Regional Trial Court granted a writ of preliminary injunction, directing that petitioner be restrained from effectuating the ejectment and that the deputy sheriff refrain from further sale or seizure of goods.

Dissatisfied with the actions of the lower courts, private respondents elevated the issue to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus (CA-G.R. SP No. 22521), seeking the annulment of:

The regional trial court’s order dated August 6, 1990 dismissing their amended petition, and
The subsequent alias writ of execution (dated August 8, 1990) and notice of sale (dated August 9, 1990).

A temporary restraining order was issued by the Court of Appeals on August 17, 1990.
Private respondents filed an urgent motion on August 20, 1990, seeking restoration of possession and the return of seized goods. Later, on August 24, 1990, the Court of Appeals issued a resolution denying the motion on the ground that the writ of execution had already been implemented.
On September 4, 1990, another resolution, reached “upon agreement of the parties,” ordered:

Private respondent to open the padlocked premises and deliver possession to petitioners, and to return the seized goods;
Petitioners to coordinate with the Philippine National Bank (PNB) to avail the cash equivalent of an escrow deposit of P118,000.00;
Petitioners to pay a monthly rental of P5,000.00 during the pendency of the petition; and
The PNB to release the escrow deposit with appropriate interest and fees.

Petitioner subsequently filed a Manifestation and Urgent Motion for Reconsideration challenging several provisions of the September 4, 1990, resolution, particularly the orders compelling restoration of possession and the handling of the escrow deposit.
The resolution finally challenged in the instant petition—issued on October 31, 1990—contained multiple directives (including orders for immediate possession, return of goods, coordination with PNB, and authorizations for law enforcement intervention) which petitioner alleged were issued with grave abuse of discretion and without or in excess of jurisdiction.

Petitioner argued that since private respondents had raised questions of ownership in a separate action pending before the Regional Trial Court, the Rule on Summary Procedure should have been inapplicable to the ejectment case.
Petitioner further contended that motions for reconsideration are prohibited under the summary procedure rules and that their filing, by not stopping the running of the appeal period, rendered the subsequent notice of appeal untimely—thus making the trial court’s decision final and executory.
The petitioner maintained that the subsequent resolutions, particularly Paragraphs 1(a) and (b), 4, and 5 of the October 31, 1990 resolution, constituted a grave abuse of discretion and an overstepping of judicial authority.

Whether the trial court and subsequent lower court actions, particularly the issuance of the writ of execution and related resolutions, were properly implemented under the Rule on Summary Procedure despite the existence of a pending separate ownership case.
Whether private respondents’ filing of a motion for reconsideration—deemed a prohibited pleading under the Rule on Summary Procedure—invalidated their subsequent notice of appeal, thereby rendering the trial court’s decision final and executory.
Whether the challenged portions of the October 31, 1990 resolution, which ordered immediate possession, return of seized goods, and directed bank and law enforcement actions, were issued with grave abuse of discretion or beyond the court’s jurisdiction.
Whether the existence of a pending annulment of sale and reconveyance action should affect the application of the summary remedy in an ejectment case.