Case Summary (G.R. No. 95818)
Background of the Case
On November 8, 1988, the petitioner filed an unlawful detainer case against the private respondents in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, asserting his right to possession of the disputed property. The private respondents countered on December 29, 1988, with a motion to dismiss, citing a pending action for annulment of sale and reconveyance before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. This related to their right to repurchase the property, which had been sold by a bank to the petitioner.
Proceedings in the Metropolitan Trial Court
At the preliminary conference, the trial court indicated that the case fell under the Rule on Summary Procedure and required both parties to submit position papers and affidavits. Subsequent motions by the private respondents to suspend the proceedings were denied. On November 27, 1989, the trial court ruled against the private respondents, ordering them to vacate the premises, pay back rentals, and cover attorney’s fees.
Respondents' Attempt to Appeal
The private respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied as a prohibited pleading under the Rule on Summary Procedure. An appeal filed on February 19, 1990, was also denied due course for being out of time due to the earlier denials of their motions. Following this, a writ of execution was issued to enforce the judgment.
Developments in the Regional Trial Court
The private respondents pursued an amended petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Regional Trial Court, challenging multiple orders from the Metropolitan Trial Court. They contended that the courts violated their rights by proceeding under the Rule on Summary Procedure while the ownership of the property was being litigated elsewhere.
Injunction Issued by Regional Trial Court
On June 18, 1990, the Regional Trial Court granted a preliminary injunction upon the private respondents’ posting of bond, preventing further eviction actions. The petitioner challenged this injunction, asserting a lack of jurisdiction for the Regional Trial Court to entertain the matter given that the decision from the Metropolitan Trial Court had become final and executory.
Court of Appeals Intervention
Following proceedings, the private respondents’ subsequent petition to the Court of Appeals sought to annul the Regional Trial Court's dismissal of their previous petition. A temporary restraining order was issued by the Court of Appeals, which ordered a return to the status quo regarding the property in dispute and the possessions taken by the sheriff.
Orders and Reactions from the Parties
The Court of Appeals issued further resolutions, wherein it required the petitioner to restore possession of the premises to the private respondents, while also mandating the return of seized goods. The petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction, as the trial court’s decision had already become final and no appeal was properly filed.
Supreme Court Decision
The Supreme Court considered the jurisdictional issues surrounding the appeal processes, the applicabili
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 95818)
Overview
- This case involves a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition initiated by petitioner Leopoldo Sy against the Court of Appeals and other respondents.
- The petitioner seeks to declare null and void the resolution of the Court of Appeals dated October 31, 1990, alleging it was issued with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
Background of the Case
- On November 8, 1988, petitioner filed an unlawful detainer case against private respondent Emeterio M. Calugay and/or all persons claiming under him, in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, identified as Civil Case No. 127019-CV.
- Private respondents filed an Answer with a motion to dismiss or suspend proceedings, citing a pending action for annulment of sale and reconveyance related to the subject property in the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Civil Case No. 88-47264).
Initial Proceedings
- During preliminary conferences, the trial judge informed the parties that the case fell under the Rule on Summary Procedure and ordered submission of position papers and witness affidavits.
- An Urgent Motion to Hold the Case in Abeyance was filed by private respondents, which was ultimately denied by the trial court.
- On November 27, 1989, the trial court rendered a judgment in favor of the petitioner, ordering private respondents to vacate the premises and pay back rents and attorney's fees.
Appeal and Subsequent Motions
- After recei