G.R. No. 173052 - People vs. Pelagio y Bermudo

Case Summary (G.R. No. 173052)

Factual Background — Lease, Default, and Demands

Respondent alleges he acquired possession of the subject lot through a Subrogation/Transfer of Rights and Improvement (dated February 5, 2004). Spouses Pacheco entered into a written Contract of Lease (dated September 20, 2012) with monthly rent of PHP 6,000 starting October 1, 2012. Spouses Pacheco ceased paying rent beginning April 1, 2017. Respondent issued a demand dated August 5, 2017 and another demand dated February 11, 2019; the latter was personally tendered by a UP-OLA intern and supported by an Affidavit of Service dated February 22, 2019. Despite demands, spouses Pacheco allegedly continued to occupy the premises.

Pre-litigation and Lupon Action

Respondent filed a complaint before the Lupon ng Tagapamayapa of Barangay Payatas, Quezon City; spouses Pacheco allegedly ignored the Lupon proceeding. A Certificate to File Action was issued on July 10, 2017, enabling the respondent to bring the unlawful detainer action in court.

Trial Court Proceedings and Service of Process

Respondent, assisted by UP-OLA, filed a complaint for Unlawful Detainer and Damages on April 13, 2019; summons were returned served on April 22, 2019. Spouses Pacheco filed an Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim on May 6, 2019, denying respondent’s assertions and asserting ownership of the property by virtue of a Deed of Assignment from the Acopiado estate. They also pleaded prescription and denied receipt of respondent’s demand letters.

Metropolitan Trial Court Findings

The MeTC (Decision dated September 21, 2020) found for the respondent, holding that all elements of unlawful detainer were established: (1) respondent’s possession and right to recover possession; (2) petitioners’ status as lessees under the written lease; (3) final demand to pay and vacate and petitioners’ continuing possession despite default. The MeTC relied on the judicial admission inherent in the executed lease and invoked Section 2(b), Rule 131 (tenant estoppel as to landlord’s title at commencement of tenancy), concluding petitioners were bound to surrender possession upon default and demand.

MeTC Relief Awarded

The MeTC ordered spouses Pacheco to vacate and surrender possession; to pay accrued rentals from February 2019 until actual vacation; to pay attorney’s fees (PHP 20,000) and costs of suit. The MeTC thereby granted the complaint for unlawful detainer and damages.

Regional Trial Court Affirmation

The RTC (Decision dated July 9, 2021) affirmed the MeTC in toto. The RTC reiterated that the lease established petitioners’ lessee status and estopped them from contesting respondent’s title under Section 2(b), Rule 131. The RTC found the affidavit of service and testimonial evidence credible and concluded petitioners’ continued possession became unlawful upon default and demand.

Court of Appeals Proceedings and Dismissal

Petitioners sought relief before the Court of Appeals by filing a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65. The CA rendered a Resolution dated July 26, 2022 dismissing the petition outright on multiple grounds: (1) the proper remedy from an RTC decision rendered in appellate capacity was a petition for review under Rule 42 (not certiorari), making certiorari an improper remedy where an appeal is available; (2) the petition lacked a proper Verification and a Certification against Forum Shopping and omitted certain relevant documents (e.g., pleadings filed before the MeTC); and (3) even if treated as an appeal, the petition was untimely because the RTC decision had already become final. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied by CA Resolution dated May 8, 2023.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari filed by the petitioner.

Supreme Court’s Procedural Analysis and Reasoning

The Supreme Court found no reversible error in the CA’s dismissal. It emphasized strict adherence to procedural requirements: the petition before the CA lacked attested verification and certification against forum shopping and failed to attach necessary pleadings. The Court applied its prior guidance (Quitalig v. Quitalig) distinguishing curability of defective verifications (sometimes curable) from defective or absent certifications against forum shopping (generally not curable except under compelling circumstances or substantial compliance). The Court concluded the petitioner’s subsequent submissions were inadequate (e.g., lacking attestation, inc

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 173052)

Facts of the Case

The respondent, Jimmy F. Reyes, is described as the lawful possessor of the lot located at No. 39 Visayas Street, Group 3, Area B, Payatas, Quezon City, having acquired the same from Benedicto Roquid by virtue of a Subrogation/Transfer of Rights and Improvement dated February 5, 2004. (Rollo, p. 28.)
Petitioner Caridad Pacheco and her late husband, Ramon Pacheco, Sr. (collectively referred to as spouses Pacheco), entered into a contract of lease with respondent at a monthly rental of PHP 6,000.00, to be paid every first day of the month beginning October 1, 2012. (Rollo, p. 28.)
Starting April 1, 2017, spouses Pacheco allegedly failed to pay the monthly rentals and, despite several demands to pay and vacate, continued to remain in possession of the premises. (Rollo, pp. 28–29.)
Respondent sent a demand letter dated August 5, 2017; another demand letter dated February 11, 2019 was personally tendered by Law Intern Juan Paolo M. Artiaga of UP-OLA on February 13, 2019, but spouses Pacheco allegedly refused to receive and sign it. Artiaga executed an Affidavit of Service dated February 22, 2019 to prove personal tendering. (Rollo, pp. 28–29.)
Respondent filed a complaint before the Lupon ng Tagapamayapa of Barangay Payatas, Quezon City; a Certificate to File Action dated July 10, 2017 was issued by the Office of Lupong Tagapamayapa. (Rollo, p. 28.)
On April 13, 2019, respondent, with assistance from UP-OLA, filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer and Damages in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). Summons upon spouses Pacheco was served on April 22, 2019 per the Return of Service of the Court Bailiff. (Rollo, pp. 29, 37, 45.)

Pleadings and Defenses of Spouses Pacheco

On May 6, 2019, spouses Pacheco, through counsel Atty. Romeo N. Bartolome, filed an Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim denying respondent’s allegations and asserting they were the owners of the subject property, claiming acquisition from the Acopiado estate, the registered owner. (Rollo, p. 29.)
Spouses Pacheco contended respondent claimed a different property than the one they occupy and argued he had no right to collect rentals or claim damages. They submitted a Deed of Assignment of Real Property as proof of ownership. (Rollo, p. 51.)
They further denied receipt of the alleged demand letter and explained that if they refused to receive it, they had cause to do so as alleged owners of the property. (Rollo, p. 51.)
As an alternative prayer, spouses Pacheco invoked prescription, alleging open and continuous possession for more than 30 years and asserting the one-year period from the last demand to vacate (August 5, 2017) for filing the action had lapsed. (Rollo, p. 51.)

The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Decision (September 21, 2020)

The MeTC found respondent proved, by preponderance of evidence, his claim to eject spouses Pacheco from the subject property and granted the Complaint for Unlawful Detainer and Damages. (Rollo, pp. 28–45; decision penned by Presiding Judge Dinah P. Maximo-Uy.)
The MeTC found all elements of unlawful detainer established: existence of a lease (judicially admitted by spouses Pacheco via the Contract of Lease dated September 20, 2012), default in payment, demand to pay and vacate, and continued possession after demand. (Rollo, pp. 37–41.)
The MeTC emphasized the judicial admission by spouses Pacheco that they stopped paying rent after learning respondent was allegedly not the real owner, concluding the parties had entered a lease and spouses Pacheco were bound to surrender possession upon default and demand. (Rollo, pp. 38–41.)
The MeTC applied Section 2(b), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, holding that a tenant is not permitted to deny the title of the landlord at the commencement of the landlord-tenant relationship; thus spouses Pacheco were estopped from contesting respondent’s title during the validity of the lease. (Rollo, p. 39.)
The MeTC’s decretal orders directed spouses Pacheco to: vacate and surrender possession of the premises at No. 39 Visayas Street, pay accrued unpaid rentals and arrearages at Six Thousand Pesos (Php 6,0000) per month reckoned from February 2019 or the last final demand to vacate until actual vacation and surrender of possession, pay Twenty Thousand Pesos (Php 20,0000) as reasonable attorney’s fees, and pay the costs of suit. (Rollo, p. 40.) (Emphases and exact wording as in the MeTC decision.)

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) Decision (July 9, 2021)

Spouses Pacheco filed a Notice of Appeal from the MeTC decision. (Rollo, p. 44–47.)
The RTC, in its Decision dated July 9, 2021, affirmed the MeTC’s findings and decretal portion in toto, finding no reversible error in the MeTC decision. (Rollo, pp. 50–54; penned by Presiding Judge Kathleen Rosario D. De la Cruz-Espinosa.)
The RTC reiterated that by virtue of the Contract of Lease, spouses Pacheco were estopped from contesting respondent’s title under Section 2(b), Rule 131 of the 2019 Rules of Court, and that documentary and testimonial evidence established spouses Pacheco’s right of possession arose from a voluntarily entered contract. (Rollo, pp. 53–54.)
The RTC found spouses Pacheco’s denial of receipt of the February 11, 2019 demand letter insufficient to outweigh the affidavit of service and positive testimony of respondent’s counsel; the continued occupation after demand made their possession illegal and actionable as unlawful detainer. (Rollo, pp. 53–54.)

Petition to the Court of Appeals and CA Resolutions (July 26, 2022; May 8, 2023)

Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a Petition for Certiorari (seeking relief under Rule 65) rather than a petition for review under Rule 42. (Rollo, pp. 3–15; CA Resolution dated July 26, 2022 at p. 76.)
In its Resolution dated July 26, 2022, the CA dismissed the petition outright for multiple reasons: the petition for certiorari improperly assailed a decision of the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction (the appropriate remedy would have been a Rule 42 petition), the petition lacked a Verification and a Certification against Forum Shopping, the Verification attached referred to a Motion and was unaccompanied by the certificate against forum shopping, and petitioner failed to attach pleadings filed before the MeTC. Consequently, the CA dismissed the petition outright under Secs. 3 and 5, Rule 46. (Rollo, p. 76.)
The petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration; the CA denied it in its Resolution dated May 8, 2023. (Rollo, pp. 24–27, 78–86.)

Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court (Issue Raised)

The petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, challenging whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in dismissing her Petition for Certiorari. (Rollo, p. 11.)
The core issue presented to the Supreme Court was whether the CA erred in di