G.R. No. 85448 - Banco De Oro Savings and Mortgage Bank vs. Court of Appeals

The Nerys had requested a grace period from the Bank to repurchase the mortgaged property and agreed to pay monthly rentals.
Their continued occupancy of the property was deemed to be by tolerance or permission, which implies an obligation to vacate upon demand.
The Nerys refused to vacate despite a demand made by the Bank on July 25, 1984, validating the Bank's right to file an ejectment suit.
The ejectment suit was timely filed, complying with the legal requirements.

Following the consolidation of title, the Bank became the legal owner of the property and had the right to initiate an ejectment action.
Under Section 1, Rule 70, an action for unlawful detainer can be initiated by any person whose possession of land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration of the right to hold possession.

In typical foreclosure cases, the mortgagee's remedy is to seek a Writ of Possession; however, the Nerys' occupancy was transformed into a landlord-tenant relationship due to their agreement to pay rentals.
The relationship between the parties necessitated an ejectment action, as it involved issues of rental payments and tenant rights.

The Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) decision became final and executory due to the Nerys' failure to appeal.
Instead of appealing, the Nerys filed a Petition for Certiorari, which is not the appropriate remedy for reviewing a judgment from an inferior court.
The law mandates that appeals must be made within the statutory period, and failure to do so results in the finality of the decision.

The Nerys argued that the MTC lacked jurisdiction over the Ejectment Suits, claiming the action was filed beyond the one-year period; however, their request for a grace period altered the timeline.
The MTC's jurisdiction was upheld, as it had properly assumed jurisdiction over the ejectment action...continue reading