ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 139364.October 11, 1999]

JOSE DOMINGO R. IGNACIO vs. PORCIUNCULA

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 11, 1999.

G.R. No. 139364(Jose Domingo R. lgnacio vs. Leticia Ramos Porciuncula, et al.)

Respondent Leticia R. Porciuncula filed an action for unlawful detainer against petitioner Jose Domingo R lgnacio and his wife Vivian in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Tanay, Rizal.

On November 26, 1997, the MTC rendered a decision against petitioner, and, on June 1, 1998, issued a writ of execution.

It appears that petitioner then filed a "Notice of Appeal by Review on Certiorari" in the Regional Trial Court of Morong, Rizal, which the latter, on August 3, 1998, denied "[f]or failure to comply with Sec. 4 of Rule 41 of the New Rules on Civil Procedure." Petitioner's "Petition for Review on Certiorari with Preliminary injunction" in the Court of Appeals was likewise dismissed on August 21, 1998 for being insufficient in form and substance. Hence, this petition. Petitioner contends that:

I

The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the case by mere technicality without considering the merits of the petition.

II

The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in overlooking the fact that the lot in question has been declared by the DPWH as land of Public Domain, hence, it cannot be the subject of any Contract.

III

The Honorable Court of Appeals erred when it overlooked the fact that the petitioners have a better right of possession than the private respondent.

These contentions are without merit.

First, as the Court of Appeals has pointed out, the petition filed before it was defective:

The instant petition, denominated "Petition for Review on Certiorari with Preliminary Injunction," is an ambiguous, fatally flawed pleading. This is because a petition for review on certiorari is an appeal to the Supreme Court from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court, or other courts whenever authorized by law (Sec. 1, Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure). The instant petition is inefficacious and should be dismissed.

Treated as a petition for certiorari, the instant petition is insufficient in form and substance.It does not allege the essential requirements of said special civil action. Neither does it state the requisite material facts. Moreover the petition does not aver the act or acts, of public respondents which were supposedly performed without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.

Likewise, while the petition assails the decision dated November 26, 1997 _of the Municipal Trial Court of Tanay, Rizal, in Civil Case No, 1112, an action for unlawful detainer, it cannot suffice as a petition for review under Rule 42 because of the petitioner's failure to comply with the requirements, such as the specific material dates to show that it was filed on time, the reasons or arguments relied upon for the allowance of the appeal, and failure to attach duplicate original or certified true copies of the judgments of both lower courts.It is to be noted that the petition prays for the annulment of the lease agreement between the petitioner and the private respondent.

What can be gathered from the petition and its annexes is that the petitioner already lost in the unlawful detainer case the Municipal Trial Court of Tanay and with the Regional Trial Court of Rizal, Branch 80 in Morong, on appeal.In the fact of said reversals, the petitioner even filed a petition for mandamus. The result of said action is not disclosed by the petition.

Second, even on the merits, petitioner's arguments lack merit. Assuming that the subject property is public in character, the same does not preclude respondent from bringing an ejectment case against petitioner. As the judgment in ejectment cases is binding only with respect to the issue of possession, the government cannot possibly be prejudiced by the ruling that respondent is entitled to the possession of the subject land. (Cabellan v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 93090, March 3, 1999)

Petitioner cannot even claim to have the better right of possession over the property as he and his wife leased the land in question from respondent on September 23, 1995. They were, therefore, estopped under Rule 131, �2(b) of the Revised Rules on Evidence from contesting the title of respondent.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court RESOLVED to DENY the petition for failure of petitioner to show that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error. Bellosillo, J., Chairman is on official leave.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE