Pacheco v. Reyes, G.R. No. 268216
Who are the parties in this case and what is the nature of the controversy between them?
Show Answer
The petitioners are Caridad Pacheco and her late husband, Ramon Pacheco, Sr. (collectively referred to as spouses Pacheco). The respondent is Jimmy F. Reyes. The controversy concerns the possession and use of a lot located at No. 39 Visayas Street, Group 3, Area B, Payatas, Quezon City.
Respondent claims to be the lawful possessor of that lot, having acquired rights and improvements by virtue of a Subrogation/Transfer of Rights and Improvement dated February 5, 2004. Spouses Pacheco, for their part, occupied the lot under a lease contract executed on September 20, 2012, agreeing to a monthly rental of PHP 6,000. The dispute arose after spouses Pacheco allegedly defaulted on rental payments starting April 1, 2017, failed to heed demands to pay and vacate, and continued to occupy the premises as a junk shop. Respondent sought to eject them by filing a complaint for unlawful detainer and damages, which gave rise to the multi-level litigation culminating in this petition for review on certiorari.
What was the contractual relationship between the parties and what were the essential terms proved in court?
Show Answer
The parties had a contract of lease dated September 20, 2012, signed by respondent and by Ramon Pacheco, Sr. under which spouses Pacheco were lessees of the subject lot and agreed to pay a monthly rent of PHP 6,000, payable every first day of the month starting October 1, 2012. The contract was introduced and treated in the lower courts as establishing the tenant-landlord relationship.
Crucially, this lease contract was judicially admitted by spouses Pacheco in their pleadings, meaning they did not contest the existence of the contract for the purpose of the unlawful detainer action. The admission was decisive in establishing that spouses Pacheco’s possession of the property was as lessees and therefore conditioned on their observance of contractual obligations, primarily the payment of rent.
What acts or omissions by spouses Pacheco led respondent to file an unlawful detainer complaint?
Show Answer
According to the factual recitation in the pleadings and accepted by the trial court, spouses Pacheco ceased paying rent starting April 1, 2017. Respondent sent several demand letters, including an August 5, 2017 demand, and later a February 11, 2019 demand demanding payment of arrears (claimed at PHP 66,000 in the February 11 demand) and demanding vacation of the premises. Despite these demands, spouses Pacheco allegedly refused to pay and remained in possession.
Respondent also pursued settlement through the Lupon ng Tagapamayapa of Barangay Payatas, obtaining a Certificate to File Action dated July 10, 2017 after an alleged failure of amicable settlement. After unsuccessful extra-judicial efforts and the alleged refusal by spouses Pacheco to accept the February 11, 2019 demand (for which respondent's law intern executed an Affidavit of Service), respondent filed the unlawful detainer complaint on April 13, 2019. Service of summons was effected on April 22, 2019, and spouses Pacheco answered, denying respondent's cause of action and asserting ownership claims among other defenses.
How did spouses Pacheco respond to the complaint in terms of factual and legal denials or affirmative defenses?
Show Answer
In their Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim filed May 6, 2019, spouses Pacheco denied respondent’s allegations and put forward two principal defenses. First, they claimed that respondent had no cause of action because they were, in fact, the owners of the subject property, asserting they acquired the property from the Acopiado estate. They submitted a Deed of Assignment of Real Property to support this claimed ownership and contended respondent was claiming a different property than the one they occupied, effectively disputing respondent’s title and right to collect rents or damages.
Second, they denied receipt of the February 11, 2019 demand letter; and even if they had refused to receive it, they asserted that they had reason to do so as alleged owners of the property. Spouses Pacheco also raised prescription as a defense, arguing that they had been in open and continuous possession for more than 30 years and that more than one year had lapsed since the last demand (allegedly August 5, 2017) within which respondent should have filed unlawful detainer. Thus, they asked for dismissal on grounds that included prescription and alleged ownership.
What is unlawful detainer and what are its essential elements as applied by the trial court in this case?
Show Answer
Unlawful detainer is an action by a landlord to recover possession of leased real property upon the tenant’s default in paying agreed rentals or upon expiration of the lease, following proper demand to surrender possession. The trial court analyzed the elements as required for unlawful detainer and found that respondent substantially proved them by a preponderance of evidence.
The elements established in this case were: (1) that respondent was the lessor or had the capacity to demand possession; (2) that spouses Pacheco were tenants in possession under the lease contract; (3) that spouses Pacheco unlawfully withheld possession by failing to pay rent and refusing to vacate despite demand; and (4) that respondent made the required demand to pay and vacate before filing suit. The court relied on the lease contract (judicially admitted), the evidence of rent default, the demand letters (notably February 11, 2019), and the affidavit of service of tendered demand to conclude that these elements were present and that spouses Pacheco’s continued possession became unlawful upon default and demand.
How did the trial court address spouses Pacheco’s claim that they were owners and thus not tenants?
Show Answer
The trial court invoked the rule in Section 2(b) of Rule 131 (2019 Rules of Court) which provides that a tenant cannot deny the title of his landlord at the time the landlord-tenant relationship began. The MeTC reasoned that because spouses Pacheco had entered into the contract of lease, they were estopped from contesting or denying the title, better right of possession, and ownership of respondent at the time the lease became effective.
Consequently, the court held that spouses Pacheco — having judicially admitted the lease — could not validly assert ownership that would negate respondent’s status as lessor for purposes of an unlawful detainer. Their asserted Deed of Assignment of Real Property and ownership claims could not be used to defeat the unlawful detainer action, which is a summary remedy premised on lease and default, absent a showing that the tenant was not a lessee at the outset of the relationship.
What evidence did respondent present to prove his demand to pay and vacate, and how did the courts evaluate that evidence?
Show Answer
Respondent presented multiple demand letters, including one dated August 5, 2017 and another dated February 11, 2019. He also procured an Affidavit of Service by his law intern, Juan Paolo M. Artiaga, dated February 22, 2019, attesting to the personal tendering of the February 11, 2019 demand to spouses Pacheco. Additionally, summons was served through the Court Bailiff on April 22, 2019 as demonstrated by the Return of Service.
The trial court credited the affidavit and the testimony of respondent’s witnesses over spouses Pacheco’s denial of receipt. The RTC, on appeal, agreed that the denial of receipt by spouses Pacheco could not outweigh the positive and categorical testimony and the affidavit of service. Thus, both the MeTC and the RTC found that respondent made the required demand to pay and vacate and that spouses Pacheco remained in possession notwithstanding the demand, satisfying the unlawful detainer prerequisites.
What was the Metropolitian Trial Court’s (MeTC) final judgment and reliefs granted to respondent?
Show Answer
The MeTC issued a decision on September 21, 2020 in favor of respondent. The court: (1) ordered spouses Pacheco to vacate the premises and to surrender possession of the lot located at No. 39 Visayas Street, Payatas, Quezon City to respondent; (2) ordered spouses Pacheco to pay accrued and unpaid rentals at PHP 6,000 per month reckoned from February 2019 or from the last final demand to vacate until the time they actually vacated and surrendered possession; (3) awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of PHP 20,000 to respondent; and (4) ordered payment of costs of suit.
The MeTC framed the decision on the ground that all the elements of unlawful detainer were established and that spouses Pacheco, as lessees, were estopped from denying respondent’s title at the time the lease took effect. The decretal orders therefore both restored possession to respondent and provided monetary relief for rent arrearages and fees.
How did the Regional Trial Court (RTC) rule on appeal from the MeTC, and what was its reasoning?
Show Answer
The RTC, through a decision dated July 9, 2021, affirmed the MeTC decision in toto. The RTC held that there was no reversible error in the MeTC’s findings and sustained the MeTC’s judgment ordering spouses Pacheco to vacate, pay rent arrearages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
The RTC reiterated the MeTC’s application of Section 2(b) of Rule 131 as a basis for estoppel: because spouses Pacheco voluntarily entered into the contract of lease, they were estopped from disputing respondent’s title or better right of possession that existed at the inception of the lease. The RTC found the documentary and testimonial evidence sufficient to establish that spouses Pacheco’s possession was derived from the lease and turned unlawful upon default and demand. It also accepted respondent’s evidence of service and demand despite spouses Pacheco’s denial.
What procedural recourse did spouses Pacheco take after the RTC decision and how did the Court of Appeals (CA) respond?
Show Answer
Spouses Pacheco, through petitioner Caridad Pacheco, filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals seeking to assail the RTC decision. The CA, in a Resolution dated July 26, 2022, dismissed the petition outright. The CA reasoned that the petition for certiorari improperly attacked an appellate decision of the RTC (i.e., an exercise of appellate jurisdiction), and the proper remedy would have been a petition for review under Rule 42 to the CA, not certiorari under Rule 65.
Further, the CA observed procedural defects in the petition: lack of a proper Verification and a Certification against Forum Shopping. The CA noted that the Verification attached referred to a motion and lacked proper attestation; the Certification against Forum Shopping was absent or defective; and certain pleadings (pleadings filed before the MeTC) were not attached. For these reasons, and because the petition was the wrong mode of remedy, the CA dismissed the petition outright under Sections 3 and 5 of Rule 46.
What were the main procedural defects identified by the CA in the Rule 65 petition filed by petitioner?
Show Answer
The CA identified several interrelated procedural defects: first, the petition lacked a proper Verification with the requisite attestation; the Verification attached referred to a Motion rather than the Petition proper and was unaccompanied by the required Certificate against Forum Shopping. Second, the petition lacked the Certification against Forum Shopping altogether or presented an inadequate version; the CA emphasized the absence of the required certificate and that the Verification was defective. Third, the CA noted that the petitioner failed to attach material pleadings, specifically those filed before the MeTC, which are essential in a petition assailing a lower court decision.
Because of these defects affecting the petition’s compliance with Rule 46 and Rule 7 (and related requirements), the CA concluded the petition was procedurally defective and dismissed it outright. The CA also treated the petition as an improper invocation of certiorari to attack an appealable RTC decision, compounding the procedural infirmities.
What did the Supreme Court identify as the core issue presented in the petition for review on certiorari?
Show Answer
The Supreme Court identified the core issue as whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari filed by petitioner. Put differently, the question was whether the CA was correct in dismissing the Rule 65 petition outright on the bases that certiorari was the wrong remedy (since an appeal under Rule 42 was available) and that the petition itself suffered from several procedural infirmities, including defective verification and certification against forum shopping and failure to attach relevant pleadings.
The Court’s analysis thus focused on the procedural propriety of the petitioner’s recourse to certiorari, the effect of the missing or defective verification and certification against forum shopping, the timeliness of any Rule 42 remedy, and whether any excuse or substantial compliance justified relaxation of the rules.
How did the Supreme Court treat the petitioner’s claim of inadvertence and subsequent submission of missing documents?
Show Answer
Petitioner argued that her failure to attach a verification and a certificate against forum shopping was inadvertent and that she later submitted the verification, the certification against forum shopping, and other required documents to the CA — claiming substantial compliance and asking for liberal application of the rules. The Supreme Court evaluated these assertions against controlling precedents regarding verification and certification requirements.
The Court was not persuaded. It observed that the subsequent submissions were still inadequate: the verification and the certification against forum shopping lacked proper attestation, and petitioner’s later filings included only the first page of her Position Paper. The Court stressed that the alleged subsequent submission did not amount to substantial compliance and that petitioner offered no compelling or justifiable reasons to relax the rules. Accordingly, the Court found the CA’s dismissal for procedural defects warranted.
What is the distinction the Supreme Court highlighted between verification and certification against forum shopping regarding compliance and curability of defects?
Show Answer
The Court reiterated guidance from Quitalig v. Quitalig indicating a crucial distinction between defects in verification and defects in certification against forum shopping. First, non-compliance with or defects in verification do not necessarily render a pleading fatally defective — courts may allow submission or correction or even act on the pleading where strict compliance can be dispensed with to serve the ends of justice. Verification is substantially complied with where a person who has sufficient knowledge signs it and the allegations are made in good faith.
In contrast, defects or non-compliance in the certification against forum shopping are generally not curable by subsequent submission, unless there are special circumstances or compelling reasons permitting relaxation. The certification must be signed by all plaintiffs or petitioners (unless reasonable justifications exist), must be executed by the party-pleader (not by counsel), and if signed by counsel must be pursuant to a Special Power of Attorney. Absent such justifying circumstances, a defective or missing certificate is fatal to the pleading.
How did the Court apply the Quitalig guidelines to the facts of this case?
Show Answer
The Court applied those guidelines to determine whether the petition’s defects could be cured. It found that the petition’s verification and certification against forum shopping suffered from attendant defects — namely lack of proper attestation — and that the petitioner’s subsequent attempts at correction were inadequate. The verification attached referred to a motion and did not bear the necessary attestation; the certification against forum shopping was either missing or defective and lacked attestation.
Given these deficiencies, and in the absence of special circumstances or compelling reasons to relax the rules, the Court concluded that the petition did not meet the standards for substantial compliance, particularly with respect to the certification against forum shopping which is less easily curable. Consequently, dismissal by the CA was justified under the established standards.
Why did the Supreme Court find that certiorari under Rule 65 was the wrong remedy in this case?
Show Answer
The Court explained that the RTC’s July 9, 2021 Decision that affirmed the MeTC was rendered in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction. As a matter of procedure, appeals from RTC decisions issued in its appellate capacity are brought to the Court of Appeals by filing a petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, not by petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Rule 65 is an original, extraordinary writ reserved to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and is not intended as a substitute for an ordinary appeal.
Because a petition for review under Rule 42 was available to the petitioner and because certiorari is only appropriate when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law, the petitioner’s resort to Rule 65 was improper. The Court therefore agreed with the CA that the petition was the wrong mode of relief when the proper recourse was an appeal under Rule 42.
Could the petitioner have been excused by the Supreme Court for using Rule 65 instead of Rule 42? Why or why not?
Show Answer
The Supreme Court declined to excuse petitioner for misusing Rule 65. The Court reiterated the settled principle that certiorari cannot substitute a lost appeal when an appeal under the rules is available. Petitioners cited the Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC) to argue that Rule 42 was not available; but the Court found that proposal unavailing because the RTC’s decisions were rendered before the effectivity of those Expedited Rules (which took effect April 11, 2022) and because the Expedited Rules apply prospectively only to cases filed from their date of effectivity. The instant case was filed in April 2019 and was decided before the Expedited Rules, so the availability of Rule 42 remained intact.
Thus, there was no legal basis or special circumstance to relax the rule and allow certiorari to replace an appeal. The Supreme Court emphasized that procedural rules governing remedies must be respected unless compelling reasons justify their relaxation — none of which the petitioner demonstrated.
How did the Court address the petitioner’s argument based on the Rules on Expedited Procedures (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC)?
Show Answer
Petitioner argued that Rule 42 was no longer a remedy because of the Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC). The Court rejected this argument, pointing out that the MeTC action was filed on April 3, 2019 and decided on September 21, 2020; the RTC affirmed that decision on July 9, 2021 and issued an order on March 2, 2022. The Expedited Rules took effect on April 11, 2022 and apply prospectively only to cases filed on or after that date.
Therefore, the Expedited Rules were inapplicable to the present case which was filed and litigated before their effectivity; the existence and applicability of Rule 42 remained intact and available to petitioner as the proper remedy to review an RTC appellate decision. Consequently, petitioner could not invoke the Expedited Rules as a justification to bypass Rule 42 and proceed by certiorari.
Did the Supreme Court consider any possibility of treating the Rule 65 petition as a Rule 42 appeal? What did it conclude?
Show Answer
The Supreme Court contemplated the hypothetical that the petition could be treated as a Rule 42 petition and considered whether such recasting would cure the petition’s procedural defects or timeliness issues. The Court concluded that even if the petition were treated as an appeal under Rule 42, it would still fail because it was filed late.
The RTC decision and subsequent order were received by petitioner’s counsel on April 28, 2022. Petitioner filed the Rule 65 petition (which would be treated as a Rule 42 petition, hypothetically) only on the 50th day after receipt of the RTC order that denied reconsideration — far beyond the 15-day reglementary period for filing a Rule 42 petition. Consequently, the assailed RTC decision had become final and executory by operation of law because the time to appeal had lapsed. Thus, recasting the petition as a Rule 42 appeal would not have rescued it from dismissal for being filed out of time.
What is the legal significance of a judgment becoming final and executory by operation of law, as discussed by the Court?
Show Answer
The Court reiterated that finality occurs by operation of law upon the lapse of the reglementary period for appeal when no appeal is perfected and no motion for reconsideration is timely filed. When a judgment attains finality by operation of law, it becomes immutable and unalterable; the courts, including the court that rendered the decision, may no longer modify it even to correct errors of fact or law. This principles applies irrespective of whether the Court formally pronounces the finality — finality is a factual occurrence once the appeal period expires.
In the instant case, because petitioner did not file a timely Rule 42 petition within the 15-day period after receipt of the RTC order, the RTC decision became final and executory by operation of law. The Supreme Court emphasized that such finality prevents subsequent attempts to disturb the judgment by procedural detours, absent extraordinary circumstances which the petitioner did not demonstrate.
What did the Supreme Court ultimately decide in this petition for review on certiorari?
Show Answer
The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45. It affirmed the July 26, 2022 and May 8, 2023 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 173904 which dismissed the Rule 65 petition for certiorari. The Supreme Court agreed that the petition was improperly brought via certiorari instead of an available Rule 42 appeal, that it suffered from fatal procedural defects (defective or missing verification and certification against forum shopping, and failure to attach necessary pleadings), and that even if treated as an appeal, it would be untimely and thus the RTC decision would have become final and unappealable.
Accordingly, the petition was denied and the CA resolutions were affirmed.
How did the Supreme Court treat the petitioner’s claimed “substantial compliance” with verification and certification requirements?
Show Answer
The Supreme Court found that petitioner’s claimed “substantial compliance” was unavailing. The decision emphasized that the petitioner’s subsequent submissions were inadequate: the verification and certification against forum shopping lacked attestation, and what was submitted by petitioner was incomplete (only the first page of the Position Paper). Thus, the Court concluded that petitioner did not demonstrate substantial compliance with the rules governing verification and certification against forum shopping.
The Court further underscored that while verification defects might sometimes be subject to correction or deemed substantially complied with depending on the circumstances, certification against forum shopping is generally not curable except under special or compelling circumstances — none of which were shown here. Hence, the Court found no basis to excuse or overlook the procedural lapses.
What does Section 2(b), Rule 131 (2019 Rules of Court) provide, and how was it applied here?
Show Answer
Section 2(b) of Rule 131 provides that a tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement of their landlord-tenant relationship. In essence, it imposes an estoppel principle preventing a tenant from claiming that he was the owner when he originally entered into the lease, thereby collaterally attacking the lessor's title in a proceeding based on their contractual relationship.
In this case, both the MeTC and the RTC applied that provision to hold spouses Pacheco estopped from denying respondent’s title because they had, at the inception of the relationship, executed the contract of lease recognizing respondent’s status as lessor. Therefore, the trial court concluded that spouses Pacheco could not successfully press their subsequently asserted ownership claim to defeat an unlawful detainer action premised on a lease and unpaid rents. The courts relied upon the parties’ judicial admission of the contract of lease to apply Section 2(b) and render the unlawful detainer remedy appropriate.
Did the Supreme Court examine the merits of the unlawful detainer judgment itself? Why or why not?
Show Answer
The Supreme Court did not undertake a fresh, merits-based review of the unlawful detainer judgment because the petition before it was procedural in nature: it was a petition for review on certiorari challenging the CA’s dismissal of the petitioner’s Rule 65 petition. The principal questions considered were procedural — whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari, whether Rule 65 was the proper remedy, and whether procedural requirements had been met.
Moreover, because the RTC decision had become final and unappealable (or the proper remedy of appeal under Rule 42 was not timely invoked), the Court was constrained from reopening the merits of the underlying unlawful detainer action. The Court’s ruling therefore focused on procedural propriety and finality rather than relitigating the factual determinations regarding possession, default, and demand that were already affirmed below.
What role did the attestation (or lack thereof) on the verification and certification against forum shopping play in the outcome?
Show Answer
Attestation is a formal requirement that adds authenticity and confirms that the party signing the verification or certification does so under oath or affirmation pursuant to court rules. In this case, both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court observed that the verification and the certification against forum shopping lacked proper attestation. The inadequacy of these documents undermined the formal compliance required by the rules and rendered the petition procedurally defective.
Because certification against forum shopping is particularly stringent and generally not susceptible to cure by subsequent submission unless special circumstances exist, the absence of proper attestation carried significant weight. The Court found that petitioner’s later attempts to correct the defects were insufficient and thus affirmed dismissal, illustrating the decisive effect an improperly attested or missing certificate can have on the survival of a petition.
Who must sign the certification against forum shopping according to the principles applied by the Court, and why is that important?
Show Answer
The Court reiterated that the certification against forum shopping must be executed by the party-pleader (the plaintiff or petitioner) and not by counsel. If the party is unable to sign for reasonable or justifiable reasons, then the party must execute a Special Power of Attorney authorizing counsel to sign on his or her behalf. Also, where there are several plaintiffs or petitioners, the certificate should be signed by all of them; if some do not sign, they may be dropped as parties unless a reasonable justification exists (e.g., common interest and common cause of action).
This requirement is important because the certification is a solemn declaration by the party that no other action or prior action raising the same issues is pending in any other tribunal, thus guarding against forum shopping. The requirement ensures that the party, not merely counsel, formally and personally represents that the case is not forum shopping. In the instant case, the absence or defectiveness of the required certification was a determinative procedural infirmity contributing to dismissal.
What lessons did the Court emphasize regarding respect for procedural rules and exceptions for relaxation?
Show Answer
The Court underscored that procedural rules should be treated with utmost respect because they facilitate the orderly adjudication of disputes, help prevent delays, and protect the administration of justice. It emphasized that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised in accordance with law and rules. Procedural rules should not be discarded merely because a party claims substantive merit.
The Court also pointed out that relaxation or suspension of procedural rules is exceptional and justified only by compelling reasons or when the ends of justice demand it. Petitioners must demonstrate persuasive grounds to warrant such relaxation; mere inadvertence or subsequent, inadequate attempt to comply does not suffice. In this case, petitioner failed to present compelling reasons to relax the rules or to establish substantial compliance, and therefore the procedural defaults could not be excused.
How did the Court interpret the effectivity and prospective application of A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC (Rules on Expedited Procedures)?
Show Answer
The Court interpreted Rule V (Effectivity) of A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC to be categorical: the Rules on Expedited Procedures took effect on April 11, 2022 and shall prospectively apply only to cases filed from that date. Cases pending before the first- and second-level courts that were filed before April 11, 2022 would remain governed by the rules in force at the time they were filed and by those same courts.
Applying this principle, the Court concluded that the Expedited Rules did not displace Rule 42 or alter the remedy available to the petitioner for the RTC decision, since the unlawful detainer case was filed on April 3, 2019 and thus was not covered by the Expedited Rules. Therefore, the petitioner’s reliance on the Expedited Rules to justify using certiorari instead of an appeal under Rule 42 was misplaced.
What was the significance of the dates of receipt and filing with respect to timeliness of appeal?
Show Answer
Timeliness is critical in appellate practice. The decision noted that the RTC’s Decision dated July 9, 2021 and Order dated March 2, 2022 were received by petitioner’s counsel on April 28, 2022. The petitioner filed the petition for certiorari on the 50th day after receipt of the RTC order denying reconsideration, which far exceeded the 15-day period for filing a petition for review under Rule 42.
Because of this untimeliness, even if the petition had been treated as a Rule 42 petition, it would have been filed beyond the reglementary period and thus the RTC decision would have become final by operation of law. The Court emphasized that finality by lapse of appeal period is automatic and not contingent upon an explicit judicial pronouncement. Therefore, the dates of receipt and filing directly affected the availability of timely appellate relief and supported the dismissal of petitioner’s recourse.
Did the Court find any reversible error by the CA in dismissing the petition outright?
Show Answer
No. The Supreme Court found no reversible error in the CA’s dismissal. The CA properly recognized that certiorari under Rule 65 was the wrong remedy for an RTC decision rendered in its appellate capacity, that the petition was defective for lack of proper verification and certification against forum shopping (and missing attachments), and that the petition would have been untimely even if treated as an appeal under Rule 42. The Supreme Court agreed with these conclusions and affirmed the CA resolutions.
Thus, the CA’s dismissal was sustained as within the scope of proper procedure and rule application; the Supreme Court found the CA’s reasoning consistent with controlling jurisprudence and the applicable rules.
What role did the Lupon ng Tagapamayapa and the Certificate to File Action play in the case’s factual history?
Show Answer
Before initiating judicial action, respondent filed a complaint with the Lupon ng Tagapamayapa of Barangay Payatas to seek amicable settlement. The Lupon allegedly attempted settlement but spouses Pacheco purportedly ignored the complaint and refused to settle. Consequently, a Certificate to File Action was issued by the Office of Lupong Tagapamayapa dated July 10, 2017, which is typically a procedural prerequisite to filing certain actions in court in the Philippines, indicating that an amicable settlement could not be reached and thus judicial recourse was permitted.
This Certificate to File Action was part of respondent’s factual record demonstrating compliance with pre-filing requirements and documenting efforts to resolve the dispute informally prior to resorting to the courts. It supported respondent’s position that judicial action was an appropriate next step and lent factual weight to the chronology of demands and attempts at settlement preceding the unlawful detainer complaint.
What monetary reliefs were awarded to respondent by the trial court, and how were they calculated or described?
Show Answer
The MeTC awarded several monetary reliefs to respondent: (1) payment of accrued unpaid rentals at PHP 6,000 per month, reckoned from February 2019 or from the last final demand to vacate, until the time spouses Pacheco actually vacated and surrendered possession; (2) attorney’s fees in the amount of PHP 20,000; and (3) costs of suit. The court specified the monthly rent amount consistent with the contract of lease and anchored arrearages to the period starting from February 2019, which corresponds to respondent’s last demand.
The MeTC’s decretal paragraph set out the rent arrearage computation method rather than a fixed lump sum for all months; it therefore required future accounting to determine the total arrears at the point of actual surrender of possession. Attorney’s fees and costs were fixed amounts awarded as part of the judgment against spouses Pacheco.
How did spouses Pacheco use a Deed of Assignment of Real Property in their defense, and how did the courts treat that evidence?
Show Answer
Spouses Pacheco submitted a Deed of Assignment of Real Property in their Answer to support their assertion that they were the owners of the property they occupied and that respondent had no right to collect rents or eject them. They contended that respondent was claiming a different property and that his cause of action was therefore defective.
However, the MeTC and the RTC found that spouses Pacheco were estopped from contesting respondent’s title at the time of the lease’s commencement because they had, through the lease contract, acknowledged respondent’s relationship as lessor. Therefore, the Deed of Assignment and ownership claim could not defeat an unlawful detainer action that was premised upon an admitted lease and tenant default. The courts effectively treated the Deed as irrelevant to the summary nature of unlawful detainer given the estoppel rule under Rule 131, Section 2(b).
Was there any finding that the trial or appellate courts committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction?
Show Answer
No. The petitioners advanced allegations invoking grave abuse of discretion as a basis for their Rule 65 petition, but both the CA and the Supreme Court found that the RTC acted within its appellate jurisdiction and did not commit jurisdictional errors warranting certiorari. Because Rule 65 is reserved for jurisdictional errors or grave abuse amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and because an adequate remedy by appeal under Rule 42 existed, certiorari was inappropriate. The courts concluded that there was no basis to treat the RTC’s exercise of appellate jurisdiction as a jurisdictional defect.
Consequently, petitioner’s invocation of certiorari on the grounds of alleged grave abuse of discretion was not persuasive, and no such abuse was found to exist that would permit the extraordinary remedy to proceed.
How did the Court balance the interest in deciding cases on their merits against the need for procedural compliance?
Show Answer
The Court recognized the tension between resolving cases on their substantive merits and enforcing procedural rules. It underscored that while the merits of a case are important, procedural rules are not empty formalities; they serve to ensure orderly adjudication, prevent delay, and maintain fairness in litigation. The Court emphasized that exceptions to procedural requirements — such as relaxing verification or certification rules — are allowed only under compelling circumstances or where substantial compliance exists. Because petitioner did not show such compelling reasons or substantial compliance, the Court deferred to procedural strictures and affirmed the dismissal despite any asserted substantive merit.
This balance reflects the Court’s position that respect for procedural rules is necessary to maintain judicial efficiency and finality, and that allowing routine circumvention of such rules in the name of substantive justice would undermine those objectives. Thus, in the absence of convincing justification, procedural defaults prevailed over any request to reach the merits.
If you were arguing for the petitioner at oral recitation, what procedural points would you emphasize in seeking relaxation of the rules? (Base your answer on what the Court would require for relaxation.)
Show Answer
If arguing for the petitioner and seeking relaxation of the procedural rules, you would need to present compelling and specific reasons why strict compliance was impossible or would result in manifest injustice. You would emphasize that any defect was inadvertent and promptly cured, showing precise dates and proof of any attempted corrections. For the verification, you would argue that a person with ample knowledge signed and that the allegations were made in good faith, demonstrating substantial compliance according to Quitalig. For the certification against forum shopping, you would need to show special circumstances or compelling reasons why the certificate could not have been executed by the petitioner personally — for example, illness, incapacity, or other verifiable obstacles — and, if counsel signed, produce a Special Power of Attorney justifying that signature.
You would also provide full and complete copies of the missing pleadings filed before the MeTC and show that no other similar action was pending elsewhere, eliminating any concern about forum shopping. Ultimately, you must convince the court that the defect was merely formal and that allowing the petition to proceed would not prejudice any party or undermine the administration of justice. The Court, however, requires persuasive proof of these exceptional circumstances which were absent in this case, so demonstrating them with credible evidence would be essential.
What practical advice does this case offer to litigants and counsel about appellate practice and filing petitions in the CA or the Supreme Court?
Show Answer
Practically, the case teaches several lessons: First, identify the correct remedy at the outset — appellate procedure matters. If the RTC acted in an appellate capacity, the proper recourse to the CA is a petition for review under Rule 42, not certiorari under Rule 65. Second, strictly comply with formal requirements for pleadings: ensure the petition is accompanied by a properly executed verification and a properly executed certification against forum shopping with requisite attestations, and attach all relevant pleadings and records from lower courts.
Third, be mindful of filing deadlines: appeals must be filed within the reglementary days; failure to file timely appeals renders the decision final and forecloses later attempts at relief. Fourth, if you anticipate the need to have counsel execute certain documents, secure a Special Power of Attorney so counsel may validly sign the certification against forum shopping. Finally, if invoking a relaxation of rules, prepare objective and convincing evidence of special circumstances or compelling reasons to justify such relaxation; mere inadvertence likely will not suffice.
In this case, were there any indications the petitioner attempted to correct deficiencies before the CA or Supreme Court? How did the courts view those attempts?
Show Answer
The petitioner asserted that subsequent submissions were made to correct the missing verification and the certification against forum shopping. However, the Court found these attempts inadequate. The CA observed that the verification attached to the petition referred to a Motion and lacked proper attestation; the petitioner later filed a verification and a certification but they still lacked attestation and were incomplete. Additionally, petitioner only submitted the first page of her Position Paper in purported compliance, failing to supply the full set of missing pleadings.
Both the CA and the Supreme Court found the corrections insufficient to achieve substantial compliance and insufficient to warrant relaxation of the rules. The courts treated these attempts as ineffective to cure fatal defects, especially given the stringent nature of the certification against forum shopping requirement.
How does this decision illustrate the interplay between substantive rights (possession, ownership) and procedural requirements in litigation?
Show Answer
The decision illustrates that even where substantive rights — such as possession and ownership — are contested and may turn on significant facts, procedural requirements can be dispositive of judicial recourse. Here, the substantive dispute over possession, rent arrears, and alleged ownership was ultimately not retried at the Supreme Court because of procedural failings: wrong mode of remedy, defective verification/certification, and untimeliness. The estoppel principle under Rule 131 also operated substantively to preclude a tenant’s collateral attack on title, but procedural bars prevented further appellate review.
This underscores that procedural compliance is not merely technical but fundamental to access to appellate review and to the administration of justice: courts will enforce procedural rules to promote finality and orderly litigation, sometimes at the cost of precluding further substantive examination when the rules have not been observed.
Suppose petitioner timely filed a Rule 42 petition with a proper certification against forum shopping and verification; based on the lower courts’ factual findings, what might have been the likely course of action by the CA regarding the merits? (Limit your answer to inferences grounded in the lower courts’ findings as presented in the case.)
Show Answer
If the petitioner had timely filed a Rule 42 petition with proper procedural formalities, the Court of Appeals would have been positioned to review the merits of the RTC decision. Given that both the MeTC and RTC found that: (1) spouses Pacheco admitted the lease contract, (2) they ceased paying rent starting April 1, 2017, (3) respondent issued demands to pay and vacate (including the February 11, 2019 demand), and (4) the affidavit of service and witness testimony supported service and demand, the CA would likely have given deference to these factual findings unless there was a clear showing of error in appreciating evidence.
Moreover, the RTC applied Section 2(b) of Rule 131 to bar a tenant’s collateral attack on landlord’s title because spouses Pacheco had entered into the lease. Unless the petition could demonstrate reversible error in applying that estoppel principle or in the finding of default and demand, the CA may well have affirmed the RTC. But this hypothesized outcome is grounded only in the lower courts’ findings as reported in the record; a reviewing court would still consider the arguments and evidence before it.
Reflecting on the decision, what are the final practical consequences for the parties after the Supreme Court’s denial of the petition?
Show Answer
By denying the petition and affirming the CA resolutions, the Supreme Court effectively let stand the RTC's affirmation of the MeTC judgment. The practical consequences are that the MeTC’s orders remain enforceable: spouses Pacheco must vacate and surrender possession of the subject lot to respondent; they must pay accrued rent arrearages computed at PHP 6,000 per month from February 2019 until surrender of possession; they must pay attorney’s fees (PHP 20,000) and costs of suit.
Because the RTC decision became final and the Supreme Court declined relief, respondent is entitled to execution of the judgment under applicable execution procedures, and spouses Pacheco no longer have viable appellate remedies within this litigation to challenge those obligations, absent extraordinary and narrowly available reliefs not invoked here.
What are three key takeaways a law student should remember from this case when preparing for oral recitation on appellate remedies?
Show Answer
First, identify and invoke the correct remedy: when an RTC acts in appellate capacity, the proper recourse is a petition for review under Rule 42 to the Court of Appeals, not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
Second, respect procedural formalities: ensure timely filing and strict compliance with verification and certification against forum shopping requirements, including proper attestation and attachments. The certification against forum shopping is particularly unforgiving and generally not curable after the fact unless compelling reasons are shown.
Third, understand finality: failure to timely appeal causes the lower court judgment to become final and executory by operation of law, which will generally bar subsequent attempts to overturn that judgment on appeal. Procedural missteps can foreclose substantive remedies.
Offer one probing question that a professor might ask to explore limits of the estoppel rule applied here, and provide an extensive model answer based only on this case’s content.
Show Answer
Probing question: Under Section 2(b), Rule 131, a tenant is estopped from denying the landlord's title "at the time the landlord-tenant relationship commenced." Based on the courts' findings in this case, how did that temporal limitation influence the rejection of spouses Pacheco's ownership claim?
Model answer: The MeTC and RTC applied Section 2(b) by focusing on the temporal aspect of the estoppel rule — whether spouses Pacheco were asserting ownership that contradicted the status at the inception of the landlord-tenant relationship. The courts observed that spouses Pacheco entered into the lease contract in 2012 with respondent and thereby judicially admitted the lease. Because they accepted the lease, they were precluded from denying respondent’s title or superior right of possession existing at the start of the relationship. The courts essentially reasoned that any change in ownership assertion made subsequent to the creation of the lease cannot be used to defeat an unlawful detainer action which relies on the contractual privity between lessor and lessee at inception.
Thus, the temporal limitation supports the trial and appellate courts' conclusion that the Deed of Assignment submitted by spouses Pacheco could not negate respondent's lessor status for purposes of an unlawful detainer action when the accessorial relationship was anchored in a valid lease established earlier. The courts did not engage in a broad inquiry into the present-day title battle because unlawful detainer is a summary remedy focusing on the tenant’s contractual relationship and default; Section 2(b) operates to bar such collateral attacks on a landlord’s title arising after the lease commenced. The end result was that spouses Pacheco’s asserted ownership did not defeat respondent’s claim to recover possession due to the estoppel principle.