[ G.R. No. 141760. May 29, 2000]

ROLAND ALFEREZ, et al. vs. CA, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAY 29 2000.

G.R. No. 141760 (Roland Alferez, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.)

This is a petition for review of the Decision dated January 18, 2000, of the Court of Appeals, First Division, in CA-G.R. SP No. 53471 entitled "Roland Alferez, et al. vs. Hon. Rodolfo R. Bonifacio and Ruben S. Martinez, represented by Edna S. Sakhrani as Attorney-in-Fact, et al."

The facts of the case are as follows:

Private respondent Ruben S. Martinez, represented by his attorney-in-fact Edna M. Sakhrani, filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City a complaint for ejectment against petitioners.1 The case was assigned to the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 68, and docketed as Civil Case No. 6826. Martinez claimed that petitioners were unlawfully occupying a lot located at Purok 7, J.P. Rizal Blvd., Pineda, Pasig City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-458862 and owned by the late Melita Martinez.

The Complaint stated that Ruben S. Martinez was the legal representative of the heirs of the late Melita Matinez.

Petitioners questioned Martinez's capacity to file the ejectment case and alleged that he had not shown any basis for his claim that he was the legal representative of the heirs of the late Melita Martinez. Petitioners also alleged that the trial court had not acquired jurisdiction over the case due to private respondent's failure to comply with the requirement of prior demand, since it was not shown that the demand letters sent by Edna M. Sakhrani as attorney-in-fact of Ruben S. Martinez were received by them.

The Metropolitan Trial Court rule in favor of the heirs of the late Melita Martinez. The dispositive portion of its Decision, dated March 10, 1999, stated:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered for herein plaintiff and against herein defendants ordering the latter and all persons claiming rights under them to vacate the subject property located at Purok 7, J.P. Rizal Blvd., Pineda, Pasig City and tyo turn over possession thereof to herein plaintiff; ordering the herein defendants to each pay the amount of P1,000.00 from June 2, 1998 until the time that they and those claiming rights under them shall completely vacated the subject premises as reasonable compensation for their use and occupation of the premises, to jointly and severally pay attorney's fees in the amount of P10,000.00 and to pay the costs of suit.

Defendants' counterclaim is dismissed for lack of basis.

SO ORDERED. 2 Rollo, p. 37.

Petitioners subsequently filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City a Petition for Review on Certiorari.3 The case was assigned to Banch 168 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City and docketed as SCA Case No. 1745. They also filed a Motion for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order to prevent the Metropolitan Trial Court from implementing the Writ of Execution which it issued in the said ejectment case.

On June 14, 1999, the Regional Trial Court issued an Order denying the Motion for issuance of Temporary Restraining Order for lack of merit.4 Rollo, pp. 41-42.

Thereafter, petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Review on Certiorari raising the following grounds.

a. The Metropolitan Trial Court judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of execution; and.

b. The Regional Trial Court judge gravely erred in denying their motion for the issuance of a temporary restraining order.

On January 18, 2000, the Court of Appeals issued the assailed Decision, the dispositive portion of which stated:

WHEREFORE, this petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 68, in Civil Case No. 6826, and the Order of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 168 in SCA Case No. 1745 are hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO.

Let the records of these cases be returned immediately to the courts of origin.

SO ORDERED. 5 Id., at 51.

Hence, petitioners filed the instant petition raising the following as issues:

I. Whether or not the private respondent is the proper party or had the authority to file the case in question.

II. Whether or not the demands required under the rule (Rules of Court) was complied with by the private respondent. 6 Id.

We find no reason to reverse the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals.

The Court notes that the issues raised by the petitioners in the appellate court were confined to the propriety of the issuance by the Metropolitan Trial Court of the writ of execution in Civil Case No. 6826 and the denial by the Regional Trial Court of the motion for issuance of a temporary restraining order. The issues raised in the instant petition, particularly whether Ruben S. Martinez has the capacity to sue as legal representative of the heirs of the late Melita Martinez, and whether the private respondent had properly made a prior demand upon petitioners to vacate the lot in question have yet to be resolved by the respondent Regional Trial Court.

The respondent Court of Appeals did not err when it dismissed the petition for review on certiorari. It is elementary that a petition for review on certiorari is a mode of review of decisions and final orders of a court. The Order of the Regional Trial Court denying the motion for issuance of a temporary restraining order is an interlocutory order, which, therefore, cannot be reviewed by the appellate court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioners should have assailed the said Order in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 instead.

Furthermore, as correctly noted by the appellate court, the Metropolitan Trial Court was correct in issuing and implementing the Writ of Execution in Civil Case No. 6826, and neither did the Regional Trial Court err in denying petitioners' motion for issuance of a temporary restraining order, because Rule 70, Section 19 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is clear on the matter:

Immediate execution of judgment; how to stay same. -- if judgment is rendered against defendant, execution shall issue immediately upon motion, unless an appeal has been perfected and the defendant to stay execution files a sufficient supersedeas bond, approved by the Municipal Trial Court and executed in favor of the plaintiff to pay the rents, damages, and costs accruing down to the time of judgment appealed from, and unless, during the pendency of the appeal, he deposits with the appellate court the amount of rent due from time to time under the contract, if any, as determined by the judgment of the Municipal Trial Court. In the absence of a contract, he shall deposit with the Regional Trial Court the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the premises for the preceding month or period at the rate determined by the judgment of the lower court on or before the tenth day of each succeeding month or period. The supersedeas bond shall be transmitted by the municipal trial court, with the other papers, to the Clerk of the Regional Trial Court to which the action is appealed.

xxx

It is clear from the foregoing that since the case was decided by the Metropolitan Trial Court against petitioners, the said court was mandated under the law to immediately issue a writ of execution in favor of the heirs of the late Melita Martinez. The assailed issuances of the Metropolitan Trial Court and the Regional Trial Court, are clearly, in accord with law.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com