Case Summary (G.R. No. 218543)
Petitioner’s Claim and Underlying Action
Sierra Grande filed a complaint for unlawful detainer (Metropolitan Trial Court, Pasay; Civil Case No. M-PSY-12-15305-CV) alleging ownership of the Roberts property, facts of permissive occupancy by respondents and their conspiracy to simulate conveyances in favor of Golden Apple and Rosvibon. Sierra Grande alleged prior Supreme Court invalidation of the fraudulent sale documents in Golden Apple Realty and Devt. Corp. v. Sierra Grande Realty Corp., and that demand to vacate on September 28, 2012 was ignored, prompting the unlawful detainer suit.
Trial and Appellate Disposition in the Ejectment Proceeding
The MeTC (Branch 47/46) rendered judgment on September 10, 2013, declaring Sierra Grande lawful owner and ordering defendants to vacate, pay Php20,000 attorney’s fees and costs. The RTC (Judge Ragasa) affirmed the MeTC decision in a decision dated April 30, 2014. Reconsideration at the RTC was denied on August 15, 2014.
Motion for Execution Pending Appeal and Denial by RTC
Sierra Grande filed a motion for execution pending appeal on September 10, 2014. Judge Ragasa denied the motion (Order dated October 29, 2014), applying the discretionary standard for execution pending appeal—requiring “good reasons” and finding it prudent to await final resolution by the Court of Appeals. A motion for reconsideration was denied by order dated April 8, 2015.
Nature and Relief Sought by the Petition for Certiorari
Sierra Grande filed a Rule 65 petition with the Supreme Court alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by Judge Ragasa in denying execution pending appeal. The petition sought annulment and setting aside of the two RTC orders denying execution pending appeal and its reconsideration.
Jurisdictional and Procedural Issues Addressed by the Court
The Court noted that certiorari is an original and independent action and that jurisdiction over respondents is acquired by service of the Court’s initial resolution or voluntary submission. The Court served its Resolution (Aug 3, 2015) requiring comments; Elmer, Golden Apple and Rosvibon filed comments. Bernardino did not file a comment; Nancy could not be located. The Court observed that Bernardino and Nancy had not appealed the RTC decision, rendering the RTC judgment final and executory with respect to them, and limiting the controversy over execution pending appeal to those who did appeal.
Capacity of Sierra Grande to Sue and Authority of Its Signatory
Respondents challenged Sierra Grande’s capacity to sue due to SEC revocations of its certificate of registration (revoked May 27, 2003; lifted Dec 20, 2012; revoked again June 21, 2013). The Court applied Section 122 of the Corporation Code, recognizing a three-year period for a dissolved corporation to prosecute or defend suits (here until June 21, 2016). The petition was filed June 29, 2015, within that period. The Court also addressed authority to sign verification and certification against forum shopping: Frank Villanueva, as General Manager, qualified to sign under recognized exceptions; additionally, a Special Power of Attorney executed and signed by a majority of directors constituted board action sufficient to clothe Frank with authority to file the petition.
Proper Forum for the Petition and Direct Recourse to the Supreme Court
Respondents argued the petition should have been filed with the Court of Appeals. The Court reiterated the hierarchy of courts rule—extraordinary writs against an RTC are ordinarily filed with the CA—but acknowledged established exceptions (e.g., issues of transcendental importance, first impression, time element, no plain speedy adequate remedy). The Court found the time element and exigency appropriate here because ejectment proceedings under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure are summary in nature and require expedition; moreover, the issue presented (propriety of execution pending appeal in an ejectment case) was a pure question of law. Thus, direct resort to the Supreme Court was proper.
Legal Rules Governing Immediate Execution in Summary Procedure Cases
The Court relied on Section 21 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure and Section 21, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, which declare that the RTC decision in civil cases governed by the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure (including unlawful detainer) shall be immediately executory, without prejudice to further appeal. The mandatory “shall” language was emphasized as imposing a ministerial duty to allow execution pending appeal in such cases.
Distinction from Authorities Cited by Respondents
Respondents relied on Eudela (execution pending appeal in injunction, specific performance and damages under Section 2, Rule 39), but the Court distinguished Eudela as inapplicable because it does not concern summary procedure ejectment cases governed by the Revised Rules. The Court instead applied controlling precedent (ALPA-PCM, Inc. v. Bulasao) holding that immediate executory effect of RTC decisions in summary procedure cases requires execution pending appeal, and that no “good reasons” discretion is applicable in such circumst
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 218543)
Case Citation, Court, Date, and Panel
- Decision reported at 881 Phil. 132, Third Division, G.R. No. 218543, dated September 02, 2020.
- Opinion penned by Justice Gaerlan.
- Concurrence by Justices Leonen (Chairperson), Gesmundo, Carandang, and Zalameda.
Nature of the Action and Relief Sought
- Original petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
- Petitioner Sierra Grande Realty Corporation sought annulment and setting aside of two interlocutory issuances in Civil Case No. M-PSY-12-15305-CV-R00-00: (a) Order dated October 29, 2014 denying motion for execution pending appeal; and (b) Order dated April 8, 2015 denying reconsideration of the first order.
- Petitioner alleged grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of public respondent Presiding Judge Maria Rosario B. Ragasa of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasay City, Branch 108.
Factual Background — Originating Unlawful Detainer Case
- On October 25, 2012, Sierra Grande filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Elmer Tan, Nancy Tan, Bernardino Villanueva, Golden Apple Realty Corporation, and Rosvibon Realty Corporation before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Pasay City.
- The MeTC case was docketed as Civil Case No. M-PSY-12-15305CV, initially raffled to Branch 47 and, after a failed judicial dispute resolution, re-raffled to Branch 46.
- Sierra Grande’s material allegations included:
- It was the registered owner of a property located at No. 2280 Roberts Street, Pasay City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 19801 (the Roberts property).
- The property was purchased in 1975 by one of its incorporators, the late Sochi Villanueva (Sochi), to house his ailing mother.
- Sochi allowed his brothers Richard and Bernardino temporarily to stay; Richard moved out in 1979.
- In 1984, Elmer and Nancy were allowed to occupy the property after eviction from an apartment in Ermita, Manila.
- Upon Sochi’s death in 1985, Bernardino, Elmer and Nancy allegedly conspired to simulate contracts to sell and deeds of absolute sale over portions of the property in favor of Golden Apple and Rosvibon.
- This Court, in Golden Apple Realty and Devt. Corp. v. Sierra Grande Realty Corp., et al., 640 Phil. 62 (2010), invalidated the contracts to sell and deeds of absolute sale on the ground of fraud, and that decision became final and executory.
- On September 28, 2012, Sierra Grande sent a letter demanding respondents vacate the property; respondents allegedly refused and thus the complaint was filed.
Defendants’ Answer and Countercontentions
- Private respondents denied the allegations and contended:
- The complaint stated no genuine cause of action for unlawful detainer because they never received the demand to vacate.
- The property had been heavily mortgaged to Manphil Investment Corporation, and respondents claimed they redeemed the mortgage for and on behalf of Sierra Grande, evidenced by an annotation on TCT No. 19801 under Entry No. 06-48179.
- On the basis of the foregoing, they asserted a right to the property.
MeTC and RTC Decisions in the Unlawful Detainer Case
- MeTC Decision dated September 10, 2013 (pened by Presiding Judge Restitute V. Mangalindan, Jr.):
- Found Sierra Grande to be the lawful owner of the Roberts property.
- Held that private respondents were occupying the property by mere tolerance.
- Dispositive relief: defendants ordered to immediately vacate and surrender possession; defendants to pay PHP 20,000 attorney’s fees and costs.
- RTC Decision dated April 30, 2014 (Judge Ragasa):
- Affirmed in toto the MeTC Decision.
- Reconsideration by private respondents denied on August 15, 2014 for lack of merit.
Motion for Execution Pending Appeal and Orders Denying Same
- Sierra Grande filed a motion for execution pending appeal on September 10, 2014.
- RTC, Branch 108 (Judge Ragasa), issued an Order dated October 29, 2014 denying the motion. Reasoning included:
- Stated principle: execution pending appeal is an exception to the general rule and should be strictly construed, requiring the existence of “good reasons.”
- Defined “good reasons” as compelling circumstances that justify immediate execution lest the judgment becomes illusory; the circumstances must outweigh potential injury should the losing party obtain reversal.
- Concluded prudence required waiting for final resolution of the petition for review then pending with the Court of Appeals (CA); therefore deferred issuance of an execution order.
- Sierra Grande’s motion for reconsideration of the October 29, 2014 Order was denied by Order dated April 8, 2015, in which Judge Ragasa reiterated her stand to wait for final resolution by the CA.
Procedural Posture Leading to Supreme Court Certiorari
- Aggrieved by the denials, Sierra Grande filed a certiorari petition directly with the Supreme Court.
- The Court declared the petition meritorious and proceeded to address jurisdictional and substantive questions raised in the petition.
Jurisdiction Over Parties and Service of the Supreme Court’s Resolution
- The Court noted that a certiorari proceeding is an original and independent action; the Court must acquire jurisdiction over the person of respondents before resolving the petition on the merits.
- The Court acquired jurisdiction over petitioner upon filing.
- Under Section 4, Rule 46 in relation to Section 2, Rule 56 of the Rules of Court, the Court acquires jurisdiction over respondents by service of its order or resolution indicating initial action on the petition.
- The Court served its Resolution dated August 3, 2015, requiring respondents to file comments within ten days.
- Elmer and Golden Apple, and Rosvibon filed comments; Bernardino did not file a comment; Nancy could not be served as her whereabouts were unknown.
- Noted circumstance: at the time Sierra Grande filed the motion for execution pending appeal (Sept 10, 2014), private respondents had not yet appealed to the CA. Thereafter, only Elmer, Golden Apple, and Rosvibon filed petitions for review with the CA; Bernardino and Nancy did not appeal, thus the RTC decision became final and executory as to them.
- Consequently, as to Bernardino and Nancy the propriety of denial of execution pending appeal was no longer at issue, permitting the Supreme Court to dispose of the petition on the merits even without having acquired jurisdiction over Nancy.
Respondents’ Procedural Objections and Court’s Rulings on Capacity and Authority to Sue
- Respondents contended Sierra Grande lacked capacity to sue due to revocation of its certificate of registration by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
- Respondents also questioned Frank Villanueva’s authority to sign verification and certification against forum shopping and to sue on behalf of Sierra Grande in the absence of a board resolution.
- The Court’s findings:
- SEC history: initial revocation of Sierra Grande’s certificate of registration on May 27, 2003 for non-filing of reports; revocation lifted on December 20, 2012; certificate revoked again on June 21, 2013 for failure to comply with SEC directives.
- Section 122 of the Corporation Code grants a corporation three years from the time of dissolution or revocation to prosecute suits in its name — here, until June 21, 2016.
- The petition for certiorari was filed on June 29, 2015, within the three-year stat