108 OG No. 36 4578 (Septembet 3, 2012)
The Case
This petition for review
[1] assails the 13 November 2009 Amended Decision
[2] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 105360. The Court of Appeals set aside its earlier Decision
[3] dated 18 February 2009, which affirmed the 27 August 2008 Order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 37, Manila.
The Facts
Respondent
Pechaten Corporation (respondent) is the registered owner of a parcel
of land (property) located at 852 Vicente Cruz Street, Sampaloc, Manila,
and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 95052 (TCT No. 95052).
In
June 1993, respondent and Teodoro Alberto, Honorata Salmorin, Aquilina
Hizon, and Dalmacia Meneses entered into a two-year lease contract
[4] involving the property. The parties agreed that the monthly rental for the first year
[5] would be P864, to be increased to P1,037 per month during the second year
[6]
of the contract. Subsequently, the lessees executed a waiver of their
rights or interest in the lease contract in favor of Virgilio Meneses,
the son of Dalmacia Meneses.
When the lease contract expired on
30 June 1995, respondent offered Virgilio Meneses to renew the lease
agreement or purchase the property. Virgilio Meneses ignored the offer
and failed to pay monthly rentals for the property starting July 1995.
On
6 October 1999, respondent sent a demand letter to Virgilio Meneses to
vacate the property and pay the accrued rent of P141,032 or reasonable
compensation for the use of the property. When Virgilio Meneses refused,
respondent filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) a case for
unlawful detainer with damages against Virgilio Meneses.
In his
defense, Virgilio Meneses claimed that the MeTC has no jurisdiction over
the ejectment suit since it was filed more than four (4) years from the
time the contract expired on 30 June 1995. Virgilio Meneses argued that
the remedy of respondent should have been
accion publiciana.
Furthermore, Virgilio Meneses asserted that he was not a party to the
lease contract, and thus, respondent has no cause of action against him.
On 12 February 2002, the Manila MeTC-Branch 2 rendered a judgment
[7] in favor of respondent, the dispositive portion of which reads:
Wherefore,
judgment is rendered ordering defendant [Virgilio Meneses], his heirs,
assigns, successors-in-interest and/or any other person claiming right
under him:
- to vacate the premises located at 852 Vicente Cruz St., Sampaloc, Manila;
-
to pay the plaintiff corporation the amount of P1,200.00 per month from
July 1995 until the time that defendant vacate the premises as
reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises;
- to pay the plaintiff the amount of P8,000.00 as attorney's fees; and
- to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.[8]
On appeal, the Manila RTC-Branch 37 affirmed the MeTC judgment. In a Decision
[9]
dated 30 May 2008, the Manila RTC-Branch 37 agreed with the MeTC that
the one-year period should be reckoned from the time the last demand was
made. In this case, the last demand to vacate the property was made on 6
October 1999.
[10] The complaint for unlawful detainer was filed on 25 November 1999, which is within the one-year reglementary period.
Meanwhile,
the City of Manila filed on 12 August 2004 a complaint for
expropriation against respondent involving the property. The
expropriation case, docketed as Civil Case No. 04-110675, was raffled to
Manila RTC-Branch 11, which issued a Writ of Possession in favor of the
City of Manila. On 27 March 2008, the Manila RTC-Branch 11 issued an
Order of Expropriation in favor of the City of Manila.
Upon the
death of Virgilio Meneses, he was substituted by his heirs, who are the
petitioners in this case. In view of the Orders of the Manila RTC-Branch
11 involving the property in the expropriation case, petitioners filed a
motion for reconsideration in the Manila RTC-Branch 37 of its Decision
dated 30 May 2008. Petitioners moved to dismiss the unlawful detainer
case, alleging that the case was rendered moot by virtue of the Writ of
Possession issued by the Manila RTC-Branch 11 in the expropriation case
involving the property. Furthermore, petitioners stated that the City of
Manila had already turned over the property to them. Respondent opposed
the motion, alleging that the Order dated 27 March 2008 of the Manila
RTC- Branch 11, declaring that the City of Manila has the lawful right
to take the property for public use, is the subject of appeal before the
Court of Appeals.
On 27 August 2008, the Manila RTC-Branch 37
issued an Order partially reconsidering its Decision dated 30 May 2008.
The dispositive portion of the Order reads:
WHEREFORE,
the Decision dated May 30, 2008 is partially reconsidered. The Decision
dated February 12, 2002 issued by the court a quo is MODIFIED as
follows:
- the order requiring appellant to vacate the
premises located at 852 Vicente Cruz St., Sampaloc, Manila, is Set Aside
for being moot and academic;
- appellant to pay the appellee the amount of P1,200.00 per month from July 1995 up to February 9, 2005;
- appellant to pay appellee the amount of P8,000.00 as attorney's fees; and
- cost of suit.
SO ORDERED.[11]
Respondent
filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, seeking to annul
the Order dated 27 August 2008 of the Manila RTC-Branch 37. In its
Decision dated 18 February 2009, the Court of Appeals dismissed
respondent's petition and affirmed the 27 August 2008 Order of the
Manila RTC-Branch 37.
Respondent filed a motion for
reconsideration and a supplemental motion for reconsideration. In its
supplemental motion for reconsideration, respondent attached a copy of
the Decision
[12] dated 24 March 2009 of the Court of Appeals-Special Sixth Division in the related expropriation case entitled
City of Manila v. Pechaten Corporation.
The Court of Appeals-Special Sixth Division reversed the Order dated 27
March 2008 of the Manila RTC-Branch 11 and dismissed the complaint for
eminent domain filed by the City of Manila. Respondent alleged that the
decision of the Court of Appeals-Special Sixth Division in the
expropriation case, which became final and executory as of 14 April
2009,
[13] is a supervening
event which warrants the reconsideration of the Decision dated 18
February 2009 of the Court of Appeals in this unlawful detainer case.
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On
13 November 2009, the Court of Appeals promulgated its Amended Decision
in favor of respondent. The Court of Appeals agreed with respondent
that the dismissal of the expropriation case is a supervening event
which warrants the reconsideration of its Decision dated 18 February
2009. The dispositive portion of the Amended Decision reads:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the instant Motion for Reconsideration and
Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration are hereby GRANTED. Our Decision
dated 18 February 2009 is hereby RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE.
Accordingly, the writ of possession issued by Branch 11 of Manila RTC in
favor of the City of Manila over the subject property is hereby
DISSOLVED.[14]
The Court of Appeals explained:
This
court is justified in suspending or nullifying the writ of execution
issued by Manila RTC Branch 11 granting possession of the subject
property to the City of Manila. An order may be suspended or nullified
when a supervening event, occurring subsequent to the said order, bring
about a material change in the situation of the parties. In this case,
the supervening event is the finality of the decision rendered by the
Special Sixth Division on the appeal from the Order of the Manila RTC
Branch 11 dated 27 March 2008. The said Special Sixth Division Decision
reversed and set aside the order of the RTC and accordingly dismissed
the complaint for eminent domain filed by the City of Manila. This
decision became final and executory as of 14 April 2009.
x x x
A
writ of possession is an order whereby the sheriff is commanded to
place a person in possession of real or personal property. The decision
rendered in the expropriation case by the Special Sixth Division is a
judgment on the merits - a consequence of the finality of the said
judgment is the revocation of the writ of possession. The order [issuing
the writ of possession] placed the City of Manila, which in turn
granted the same to the Respondents [petitioners], in possession prior
to the decision of the Special Sixth Division. Notwithstanding the writ
of possession, title to the said property is still in the name of the
Petitioner. The possession of the property must revert back to legal
owner of the said property, in this case to Pechaten Corporation,
because the expropriation case was also rendered final and executory.[15]
Hence, this petition.
The Issue
The
issue in this case is whether petitioners are still entitled to retain
possession over the subject property despite the dismissal of the
expropriation case.
The Ruling of the Court
We find the petition without merit.
Section 11, Rule 67 (Expropriation) of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
Sec. 11. Entry not delayed by appeal; effect of reversal.
- The right of the plaintiff to enter upon the property of the
defendant and appropriate the same to public use or purpose shall not be
delayed by an appeal from judgment. But if the appellate court
determines that plaintiff has no right of expropriation, judgment shall
be rendered ordering the Regional Trial Court to forthwith enforce the
restoration to the defendant of the possession of the property, and
to determine the damages which the defendant sustained and may recover
by reason of the possession taken by the plaintiff. (Emphasis supplied)
In this case, the Court of Appeals-Special Sixth Division, in the related expropriation case entitled
City of Manila v. Pechaten Corporation,
held that the expropriation of the property was not for public use. In
its Decision dated 24 March 2009, the Court of Appeals-Special Sixth
Division found that the expropriation of the property pursuant to City
Ordinance No. 7984 was intended for the sole benefit of the family of
Virgilio Meneses.
[16] Thus,
the Court of Appeals-Special Sixth Division dismissed the complaint for
eminent domain. The City of Manila did not appeal the Decision, which
became final and executory on 14 April 2009.
Considering that the
Decision of the Court of Appeals-Special Sixth Division reversing the
judgment of expropriation already became final and executory, it is only
proper that respondent should be restored to its rightful possession of
the property in accordance with Section 11, Rule 67 of the Rules of
Civil Procedure.
WHEREFORE, we
DENY the petition. We
AFFIRM the
13 November 2009 Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
No. 105360. The Decision dated 30 May 2008 of the Manila Regional Trial
Court, Branch 37, in Civil Case No. 04-108960, affirming the 12
February 2002 Judgment of the Manila Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 2,
is
REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, (Chairperson), Peralta,* Perez, and
Mendoza,** JJ., concur.
* Designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 1074 dated 6 September 2011.
** Designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 1066 dated 23 August 2011.
[1] Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
[2] Rollo,
pp. 28-46. Penned by Associate Justice Arturo G. Tayag, with Associate
Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Sixto C. Marella, Jr., concurring.
[3] Id. at 85-99.
[4] Id. at 257-259.
[5] From 1 July 1993 to 30 June 1994; id. at 257.
[6] From 1 July 1994 to 30 June 1995; id.
[7] Id. at 359-362.
[8] Id. at 361-362.
[9] Id. at 382-387.
[10] The RTC Decision dated 30 May 2008 erroneously stated the date of the last demand as 6 October 1996; id. at 387.
[11] Id. at 391.
[12] Id. at 66-83.
[13] Id. at 392.
[14] Id. at 44.
[15] Id. at 43, 46.
[16] Id. at 79.