ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 137239.� August 31, 2005]

KHO vs. CARRIAGA

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 31 2005 .

G.R. No. 137239 (JAIME A. KHO, LOLITA K. HERNANDEZ and FRANCISCA K. NGO vs. ROLANDO F. CARRIAGA, ROBERTINO F. CARRIAGA and ROWENA CARRIAGA AMIAN.)

Assailed in the instant petition for review on certiorari are the Resolution dated August 8, 1997 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 42919 dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by herein petitioners and the Resolution dated January 11, 1999 denying their motion for reconsideration.

In a Contract of Lease dated July 22, 1985, petitioners leased respondents' property for a term of "ten (10) years starting January 1, 1985 renewable for another term subject to negotiation as to the amount of rentals." Before the expiration of the lease contract, respondents sent a letter to petitioners indicating therein the conditions of a new lease, specifically the increase of the monthly rental rate. Petitioners made a counter offer but respondents found it unacceptable. They refused to accept petitioners' payments of the monthly rental based on the latter's counter-offer. On May 31, 1995, or four (4) months following the expiration of the lease contract, respondents filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against petitioners with the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCC), Branch 2, Laoag City.

On April 19, 1995, the MTCC rendered Judgment against petitioners ordering them to vacate the premises and to pay P56, 700.00 rental per month from January 1, 1995 until they vacate the premises or are evicted therefrom. On May 27, 1996, the MTCC amended its Decision reducing the monthly rental to P49, 263.30.

On appeal by petitioners, the Regional Trial Court of Laoag City, Branch 16, issued an Order dated August 30, 1996, affirming in toto the MTCC Decision.

It appears that the RTC Decision has attained its finality. Petitioners alleged that their counsel received a copy of the RTC Decision on August 31, 1996, however, he did not interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals. Thus, the RTC remanded the records of the case to the MTCC for execution of its Decision. On September 16, 1996, the MTCC issued an Order directing the issuance of a writ of execution. The Sheriff's Return shows that the Decision of the MTCC has been partially executed.

On January 2, 1997, petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (now the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended). It is clear that petitioners resorted to this remedy because the period to appeal had expired. Consequently, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, holding that a petition for certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal.

Significantly, in their comment on the said petition for certiorari, respondents averred that petitioners had vacated the leased premises; and that "the Decision which is sought to be reviewed and/ or set aside has become fiat accompli."

Meanwhile, in their comment on the instant petition, respondents reiterated that petitioners had completely abandoned the leased premises. Clearly, the basic issue raised in the instant petition has become moot and academic. Moreover, the Appellate Court did not err in dismissing the petition for certiorari as this remedy is not a substitute for a lapsed appeal.

WHEREFORE, the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 42919 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUISITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE