Case Summary (G.R. No. 198172)
Factual Background
The petitioner owned the San Juan Apartments in Pasay City. The respondent leased two units under month-to-month contracts with automatic renewals. The petitioner served a written notice terminating the leases. When the respondent refused to vacate, the petitioner filed a complaint for ejectment with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Pasay City on May 1, 2001.
Trial Court Proceedings
The MTC ruled for the petitioner, ordering the respondent to vacate and to pay rentals until compliance. The respondent appealed to the RTC and, pending appeal, consigned monthly rentals with the RTC because the petitioner refused the payments. The RTC affirmed the MTC decision and denied the respondent's motion for reconsideration.
Court of Appeals Dismissal of Ejectment Case
On further review, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts and dismissed the ejectment case. That dismissal became final and executory on March 19, 2003, effectively blotting out the complaint.
RTC Orders Granting Withdrawal of Consigned Rentals
Following the CA dismissal, the petitioner moved before the RTC to withdraw the rentals consigned by the respondent and to enforce payments represented by a supersedeas bond. In an order dated July 25, 2003, the RTC allowed withdrawal of the consigned rentals on equitable grounds, explaining that the dismissed complaint no longer existed yet the petitioner remained entitled to rentals for use and occupation. The RTC denied the respondent's motion for reconsideration in an order dated November 28, 2003, and issued a writ of execution on December 18, 2003.
Court of Appeals and Supreme Court Rulings Upholding RTC Orders
The respondent filed a petition under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals to annul the RTC orders allowing withdrawal of the consigned funds. The CA dismissed that petition, characterizing the RTC action as an exercise of its equity jurisdiction under Section 5, Rule 39 and Sections 5 and 6 of the Rules of Court. The respondent's petition to the Supreme Court in G.R. SP No. 171429 was denied for insufficiency in form and failure to show reversible error, and that denial became final. The validity of the RTC orders was thus upheld in separate proceedings.
Execution Proceedings and Levy on Respondent's Property
Because the withdrawn funds and the supersedeas bond did not satisfy the rentals due from May 2001 to May 2004, the petitioner moved before the RTC for levy upon real property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 136829. The RTC granted the motion in an order dated June 30, 2008. The respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied on August 26, 2008. An alias writ of execution had earlier been issued on April 26, 2007. A public auction of the respondent's property was held on November 4, 2008, where the petitioner was the highest bidder and a Certificate of Sale was registered. The respondent redeemed the property on January 7, 2010 by paying the bid price with legal interest.
Court of Appeals Proceeding in CA-G.R. SP No. 105290
The respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals challenging the RTC orders that directed the levy on his real property and sought injunctive relief. The CA dismissed the petition and later, however, in CA-G.R. SP No. 105290 reversed and set aside the RTC orders directing the levy on the respondent's real property. The CA held that while the RTC had jurisdiction to approve withdrawal of consigned rentals under its equity powers, it lacked jurisdiction to levy on the respondent's real property because, in the CA's view, execution of a judgment pending appeal should have been pursued before the MTC where the ejectment complaint originated. The CA ordered the remand of the matter to the MTC for execution.
The Petition Before the Supreme Court
The petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari to this Court to challenge the CA ruling in CA-G.R. SP No. 105290. The petitioner principally argued that the RTC acted within its equity jurisdiction in ordering withdrawal of consigned rentals and in ordering levy on real property, that the CA petition had become moot and academic after auction and redemption, and that the respondent's CA petition should have been dismissed for lack of a notarized seal on the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping. The respondent opposed the petition and reiterated that the RTC lacked jurisdiction to levy on real property.
Issue Presented
The dispositive issue was whether the RTC had jurisdiction to levy on the respondent's real property pursuant to the RTC orders that had authorized withdrawal of consigned rentals and execution thereon.
Supreme Court's Ruling — Granting the Petition
The Supreme Court granted the petition. The Court reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals' decision dated November 23, 2010 and resolution dated August 10, 2011 in CA-G.R. SP No. 105290. The Court reinstated the RTC orders dated June 30, 2008 and August 26, 2008. Costs were imposed against the respondent.
Procedural Issue: Notarial Seal on Verification and Certification
The Court rejected the petitioner's contention that the CA should have dismissed the respondent's petition for lack of a notarial seal on the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping. The Court recognized that defects in verification or notarial certificates may be subject to correction and that strict compliance should not defeat adjudication on the merits. The Court found that the verification and certification had been submitted and that, except for an absent notarial seal, the formal requirements were substantially complied with. The Court therefore upheld the CA's exercise of discretion to give due course to the petition.
Mootness and the Justiciability of Jurisdictional Questions
The Court held that the respondent's subsequent redemption of the property did not render the CA petition moot because the question whether the RTC had jurisdiction to levy on real property presented a justiciable issue. The Court emphasized that jurisdictional questions prevent claims from becoming moot and that courts must address jurisdiction even if not raised by the parties. The Court further observed that even if the matter were argu
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 198172)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Regulus Development, Inc. was the lessor and petitioner in the present petition for review on certiorari.
- Antonio dela Cruz was the lessee and respondent who occupied two apartment units at San Juan Apartments.
- The petition sought review of the Court of Appeals decision dated November 23, 2010 and resolution dated August 10, 2011 in CA-G.R. SP No. 105290.
- The present decision was authored by Justice Brion and was concurred in by Justices Carpio, Del Castillo, Mendoza, and Leonen.
Key Factual Allegations
- Regulus Development, Inc. owned San Juan Apartments and leased Units 2002-A and 2002-B to Antonio dela Cruz under monthly leases with automatic renewal unless terminated by written notice.
- The petitioner terminated the leases and filed an ejectment complaint in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay City on May 1, 2001 after the respondent refused to vacate.
- The MTC ruled for the petitioner and ordered ejectment and payment of rentals until compliance, and the RTC affirmed that judgment before the CA reversed and dismissed the ejectment case.
- While the ejectment appeal was pending, the respondent consigned monthly rentals to the RTC and also posted a supersedeas bond representing certain rentals.
Procedural History
- The Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 69504 reversed the lower courts and dismissed the ejectment case, and the dismissal became final on March 19, 2003.
- The RTC granted the petitioner’s motion to withdraw consigned rentals and the supersedeas bond by order dated July 25, 2003, and denied reconsideration on November 28, 2003.
- The petitioner obtained writs of execution and an Alias Writ of Execution from the RTC to withdraw deposits and enforce the RTC orders, and the RTC later ordered levy on the respondent’s real property covered by TCT No. 136829.
- The respondent filed certiorari petitions in the CA challenging the levy, an auction sale was held where the petitioner was the highest bidder, the respondent redeemed the property, and the CA ultimately reversed the RTC’s levy orders in CA-G.R. SP No. 105290.
Issues Presented
- The core issue presented was whether the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction to levy on the respondent’s real property pursuant to the RTC orders enforcing amounts due under the lease contracts.
- Ancillary issues included whether the CA petition was moot and academic after redemption and whether procedural defects in the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping warranted dismissal.
Contentions of the Parties
- The petitioner argued that the RTC acted within its equity jurisdiction in releasing consigned rentals