LEOPOLDO SY, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ** ROLANDO JAVIER, Deputy Sheriff, Br. XIX, Metropolitan Trial Court, Manila, and SPOUSES EMETERIO M. CALUGAY and LINA SAMERA.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 95818
- Promulgated: 1991-08-02
- Ponente: Regalado, J.
Doctrine
Unlawful detainer proceedings are summary in nature; undue delay in resolution and enforcement undermines the purpose of the Rule on Summary Procedure. (Court emphasizes expedited, less expensive determination.)
The mere pendency of an action for reconveyance or annulment of sale creates only an expectancy and does not compel suspension of an ejectment case absent compelling reasons. (Jurisdictional focus precedes ancillary issues.)
When jurisdictional challenge is raised, the respondent court must first determine whether it may assume jurisdiction or whether the main action is dismissible before deciding ancillary matters that could render its resolution nugatory.
Facts
Petitioner filed an unlawful detainer case in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch XIX, docketed as Civil Case No. 127019-CV on 8 November 1988. (¶5)
Private respondents filed an Answer with Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative to Suspend Proceedings, alleging a pending reconveyance/annulment action in the Regional Trial Court. (¶5)
Petitioner sought relief by filing a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition to annul the Court of Appeals' resolution of 31 October 1990, for alleged grave abuse of discretion. (¶4)
The Court stressed the summary nature of unlawful detainer proceedings and that pendency of a reconveyance action does not compel delay of ejectment proceedings. (¶52)
Issues
Whether the Court of Appeals' resolution of 31 October 1990 was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. (Whether certiorari/prohibition relief is proper.)
Whether the pendency of an action for reconveyance justifies delaying resolution and enforcement of an unlawful detainer judgment. (Whether the trial court should assume jurisdiction over collateral proceedings.)
Ruling
The assailed resolution of 31 October 1990 is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE; the Court directed the respondent court to proceed forthwith with deliberate dispatch in CA-G.R. SP No. 22521 as indicated in the opinion. (Disposition.)
The Court held that delay in resolving unlawful detainer cases is contrary to their summary nature and that the pendency of a reconveyance action does not, by itself, justify postponing ejectment proceedings. (Merits principle applied.)
Keywords
G.R. No. 95818, certiorari and prohibition, grave abuse of discretion, lack of jurisdiction, unlawful detainer case, Rule of Summary Procedure, Answer with Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative to Suspend Proceedings, annulment of sale and reconveyance, prejudicial question, motion for reconsideration, prohibited pleading, prescriptive period to appeal, notice of appeal, writ of execution, writ of "Ejectment Execution", notice of levy, preliminary injunction, Section 1, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, Section 15 of the Rule on Summary Procedure, Urban Land Reform Law