Title
Supreme Court
Regulus Development, Inc. vs. Dela Cruz
Case
G.R. No. 198172
Decision Date
Jan 25, 2016
Petitioner Regulus Development terminated respondent's lease, leading to an ejectment case. Despite CA dismissal, RTC ordered property levy for unpaid rentals. SC upheld RTC's equity jurisdiction, ruling levy valid despite procedural defects and property redemption.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 198172)

Antecedent Facts

Regulus Development, Inc. owned the San Juan Apartments and leased units 2002-A and 2002-B to Antonio Dela Cruz. Each lease was for a duration of one month, subject to automatic renewals unless terminated by written notice. Upon sending a termination letter, the petitioner filed for ejectment in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) after the respondent refused to vacate. The MTC ruled in favor of the petitioner. Subsequent appeals led to a ruling by the RTC affirming the MTC's decision, but the Court of Appeals (CA) later reversed the lower court’s decisions, ultimately dismissing the ejectment case.

Court Decisions and Dismissals

Following the dismissal of the ejectment case, the RTC granted the petitioner’s motion to withdraw the consigned rental payments deposited by the respondent, asserting it had the authority to do so under its equity jurisdiction. The respondent's petitions against these orders were dismissed by the CA, and subsequent appeals to the Supreme Court supported these findings, solidifying the RTC's jurisdiction over the orders.

The Petition

In its petition for review on certiorari, the petitioner contested the CA’s reversal of the RTC's orders regarding the levy of the respondent's property. The petitioner maintained that (1) the RTC’s actions fell within its equity jurisdiction, (2) the respondent's subsequent redemption of the property rendered the CA’s petition moot, and (3) procedural deficiencies regarding the verification of the petition should not have led to its dismissal.

Procedural Issues and Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court addressed procedural arguments, asserting that procedural defects such as the absence of a notarial seal on the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping do not necessarily invalidate a petition factually compliant with the rules. The Court reinforced the principle that courts strive to resolve cases based on substantive merits rather than technicalities. Moreover, it stated that the CA rightly refused to dismiss the petition because the jurisdictional issue raised was inherently justiciable.

Jurisdictional Scope of the RTC

The Supreme Court delineated the distinction between equity jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction. The RTC's orders allowing the withdrawal of funds were issued under its equity jurisdiction, not its appellate jurisdiction, as the ejectment case’s dismissal p

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.