383 Phil. 388
MENDOZA, J.:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff Conchita L. Abellera ordering defendant spouses Beltran and Nicerita Acebuche a.k.a. Beltran and Nicerita Abellera and all persons claiming rights under them to vacate the premises identified as Block 18, Lot 9 located at No. 571 A. Bonifacio St., Bgy. Bagong Silang, Quezon City and to turn-over possession thereof to Plaintiff herein. Defendants are likewise ordered to pay the following:Private respondents appealed and the case was assigned to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 106, Quezon City, presided by Judge Julieto P. Tabiolo. Pending appeal, the decision of the MeTC was executed and fully satisfied as private respondents failed to file a supersedeas bond. On February 22, 1994, the court required the parties to file their memoranda, which petitioner did on April 15, 1994. On April 18, 1994, private respondents moved for a new trial, but this was dismissed by the court on April 26, 1994 for failure to prosecute.[5] On May 27, 1994, private respondents moved for admission of additional evidence consisting of a Contract to Sell between them and the Quezon City government, dated March 3, 1994, involving the lot in dispute and receipts for payment of said lot for the months of March and April 1994.[6] This motion was submitted for resolution on May 31, 1994.[7] After private respondents filed their memorandum on July 5, 1994, the court directed the parties to attend a preliminary conference which was held on July 26, 1994.
1) the amount of P3,000.00 per month computed from December 23, 1990 representing the reasonable compensation for their use and occupancy of the premises in question until the same is completely vacated by defendants and all persons claiming rights under them;
2) the amount of P5,000.00 as and for attorney's fees; and
3) the cost of suit.
All told and painstakingly reviewed, sedately examined and objectively analyzed, this Court is inclined to believe that the plaintiff/appellee cannot claim any right over the property in question, since there is no evidence on records to show that she has any interest thereon, not even any right being transferred to her. A fortiori, plaintiff's claim that defendants-appellants are unlawfully withholding possession of subject premises in violation of her rights and interest as occupant and owner of the property in question, cannot be accorded the court's conformance, as the evidence on record does not sustain that claim.Petitioner moved for reconsideration on the ground that the appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction when it, in effect, conducted a trial de novo and ordered an ocular inspection of the property. Before the court could act on her motion, however, petitioner filed, on February 14, 1995, a motion seeking the inhibition of Judge Julieto P. Tabiolo. Her motion was granted and the case was raffled to Branch 80 of the court, presided by Judge Agustin S. Dizon. In his order dated March 17, 1995, Judge Dizon declared all pending incidents in the case submitted for resolution.[12]
WHEREFORE, prescinding from the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered reversing the decision rendered by the Court a quo, and in lieu thereof, another is hereby rendered dismissing the complaint, with costs against the plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Motion To Allow Restoration of Possession filed by defendants/private respondents is GRANTED. As prayed for, an order is hereby issued directing herein plaintiff/petitioner to allow defendants/private respondents to occupy the subject lot and directing plaintiff/petitioner to peacefully turn over possession to defendants/private respondents.Hence, this appeal. Petitioner alleges that -
The petition is partly meritorious.
- THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT ALLOWED THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS APPELLATE JURISDICTION IN AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASE COVERED BY THE REVISED RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE TO CONDUCT CLARIFICATORY HEARINGS AND ALLOW A PARTY TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE.
- THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT ALLOWED THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT SITTING AS AN APPELLATE COURT TO ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE CONDUCT OF AN OCULAR INSPECTION.
Section 22, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129Thus, there can be no trial de novo. The appellate court must decide the appeal on the basis of the records and memoranda/brief (Herrera, Oscar M. Remedial Law, Volume Two-Civil Procedure, Rules 24-56, 1990, p. 216, citing R.A. 6031, Section 22 (d), B.P. 129, Rule 21 (d), IRC).SEC. 22. Appellate Jurisdiction. – Regional Trial Court shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions. Such cases shall be decided on the basis of the entire record of the proceedings had in the court of origin and such memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted by the parties or required by the Regional Trial Courts. The decision of the Regional Trial Courts in such cases shall be appealable by petition for review to the Court of Appeals which may give it due course only when the petition shows prima facie that the lower court has committed an error of fact or law that will warrant a reversal or modification of the decision or judgment sought to be reviewed. (italics ours).Section 21(d), Interim Rules of Court -Section 21. Appeal to the Regional Trial Courts. -Section 45, Republic Act No. 6031 -
(d) Within fifteen (15) days from receipt by the parties of the notice referred to in the preceding paragraph, they may submit memoranda and/or briefs, or be required by the regional trial court to do so. After the submission of such memoranda and/or briefs, or upon the expiration of the period to file the same, the regional trial court shall decide the case on the basis of the entire record of the proceedings had in the court of origin and such memoranda and/or briefs as may have been filed. (italics ours)Section 45 x x x "Courts of First Instance shall decide such appealed cases on the basis of the evidence and records transmitted from the city or municipal courts: Provided, That the parties may submit memoranda and/or brief with oral argument if so requested: Provided, however, That if the case was tried in a city or municipal court before the latter became a court of record, then on appeal the case shall proceed by trial de novo." (italics ours)
[A] party can not invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent and, after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction (Dean vs. Dean, 136 Or. 694, 86 A.L.R. 79). In the case just cited, by way of explaining the rule, it was further said that the question whether the court had jurisdiction either of the subject-matter of the action or of the parties was not important in such cases because the party is barred from such conduct not because the judgment or order of the court is valid and conclusive as an adjudication, but for the reason that such a practice can not be tolerated --- obviously for reasons of public policy.Upon the principle stated in Sibonghanoy, we hold that petitioner cannot be permitted to question at this stage the reception of additional evidence and ocular inspection of property after she participated but eventually lost in what she now calls the irregular proceedings of the trial court. During the seven hearings conducted by Branch 106 of the RTC, Quezon City, petitioner presented no less than seven witnesses in addition to several documentary evidence to support her case. Afterwards, on September 15, 1994, she filed her Formal Offer of Exhibits[18] followed by a Supplemental Memorandum on September 26, 1994.[19] The order to conduct ocular inspection was likewise made in open court, the presence of petitioner's counsel.[20] It was only after the court rendered its ruling on December 15, 1994, reversing the lower court, that petitioner, in her motion for reconsideration, questioned for the first time the authority of said court to conduct the hearings and ocular inspection.[21]
Furthermore, it has also been held that after voluntarily submitting a cause and encountering an adverse decision on the merits, it is too late for the loser to question the jurisdiction or power of the court (Pease vs. Rathbun-Jones etc., 243 U.S. 273, 61 L. Ed. 715, 37 S. Ct. 283; St. Louis etc. vs. McBride, 141 U.S. 127, 35 L. Ed. 659.) And in Littleton vs. Burgess, 16 Wyo. 58, the Court said that it is not right for a party who has affirmed and invoked the jurisdiction of a court in a particular matter to secure an affirmative relief, to afterwards deny that same jurisdiction to escape a penalty.