ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 136343. April 5, 2000]

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 5, 2000.

G.R. No. 136343 (Spouses Rolando and Elizabeth Belison, vs. Court of Appeals, et al.)

This resolves petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution, dated November 24, 1999, denying their petition for Review on Certiorari.

Petitioners contend that:

Movants contend that the Court of Appeals refused to act on their petition for annulment of judgment, holding that the proper remedy should have been a petition for review. Said court also held that such remedy was still available when petitioners brought their petition for annulment of judgment. Movants therefore argue that in the interest of justice, the Court of Appeals should have treated the petition for annulment as a petition for review, and ruled on the merits of the same.

Petitioners aver that what is involved here is not merely a question of possession but also of ownership, cognizable by the Regional Trial Court. According to them, they have been in possession of subject property before the same was awarded by the MMDA to private respondents and therefore, there was no forcible entry, and the Municipal Trial Court a quo had no jurisdiction over the case. Thus, they (petitioners) brought a petition for annulment before the Court of Appeals.

Both the public and private respondents submitted their respective Comments, praying for the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration under consideration.

Petitioners specifically denominated their petition before the Court of Appeals as one for annulment of judgment and NOT a petition for review on certiorari.1 CA Decision, Rollo, p. 20. Having chosen one mode of appeal, petitioners now change their recourse after failing to obtain the relief prayed for. Unfortunately, they chose an improper remedy and are bound thereby. That the Court of Appeals should have considered their petition for annulment as a petition for review on certiorari involved an exercise of judicial discretion not reviewable here.

Furthermore, petition for annulment of judgments of Municipal Trial Courts are cognizable by the regional Trial Court.2 Sec. 10, Rule 47, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. From the pleadings on hand, it does not appear that the petitioners followed the procedure prescribed by the rules. They sought the annulment of the decision of the MTC and RTC before the Court of Appeals, disregarding in the process, the hierarchy of courts.

Further, petitioners insist that the lower courts should have also resolved the issue of ownership over the subject property. What was filed below was only an ejectment case, specifically one for forcible entry. An ejectment suit is conclusive only on the issue of possession de facto or material possession of the property under litigation, not on the issue of ownership.3 Chua vs. Court of Appeals, 286 SCRA 437, 450. It should likewise be noted that MMDA Resolution No. 41 remains valid and binding until it is declared unconstitutional, and this case is not the proper forum for the determination of the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of said Resolution.

Then too, as found by the Court of Appeals, the judgments and order sought to be annulled have attained finality.4 Ibid, p. 25.

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED with finality.

SO ORDERED.