Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50075:gr-130348-2007&amp;catid=1496&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 13:05:30+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 130348 - MIGUEL SORIANO, JR., ET AL. v. ANTERO SORIANO, ET AL.
MIGUEL SORIANO, JR. and JULIETA SORIANO, Petitioners, v. ANTERO SORIANO and VIRGINIA SORIANO, Respondents.
In this Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended, petitioner spouses Miguel Soriano, Jr. and Julieta Soriano seek: (1) the reversal of the 18 August 1997 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 44365; (2) the dismissal of the complaint for ejectment filed by herein respondents; and (3) the issuance of a temporary restraining order enjoining the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) and herein respondents, and all persons acting in behalf of the latter, from conducting proceedings relative to the writs of execution and demolition issued in Civil Cases No. 3856 and No. 94-0001 until final resolution of the present petition.
The assailed Court of Appeals decision affirmed in toto an earlier Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 255, Las PiÃ±as, dated 3 April 1997, in two consolidated cases, Civil Cases No. 96-0148 and No. 96-0148(A), affirming in toto the Joint Decision4 of the MeTC, Branch 79, Las PiÃ±as, dated 15 April 1996, in Civil Cases No. 3856 and No. 94-0001.
1] To vacate the premises covered by TCT NO. S33221 of the Register of Deeds of the Province of Rizal.
2] Ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiffs for the use of the premises, from January 1994 up to the dates defendants vacates (sic) the premises, the amount of Two Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Two Pesos (P2,662.00) per month plus 12% per annum with an increment of 10% every three (3) years beginning 1994.
7] That sometime December 1993, the defendants (sic) spouses were surprised to learn that the lessees, under the guise of being the owner, were subleasing the same to third persons.
8] That plaintiffs secured a copy of the "Contract of Lease" entered into by the defendants and a certain Marilou P. Del Castillo x x x.
9] That upon further investigation, the plaintiffs were further surprised to learn that the premises were likewise being leased to a Beauty Parlor, Photography Shop, Auto Supply Dealer and a Money Changer.
10] That the subleasing of the premises was made by the lessees sans the implied or express consent of the Lessors.
12] That on December 1993, plaintiffs sent to the defendants a "Notice to Vacate" x x x.
As proof of the above-quoted allegations, respondents offered in evidence the following: 1) a copy of a contract11 of lease executed by and between Miguel Soriano, Jr. and Marilou P. Del Castillo on 3 July 1993; 2) the affidavit of Marilou P. Del Castillo essentially corroborating the averments in the complaint respecting the Contract of Lease between her and petitioners; 3) various affidavits of third parties with whom petitioners allegedly subleased various portions of the subject property; and 4) a Questioned Document Report by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) stating that the signature of Marilou P. Del Castillo on the Joint Venture Agreement presented by respondents was a forgery.
On the other hand, petitioners denied violating the subject contract of lease they signed with respondents and contradicted the existence of the alleged sublease agreement with one Marilou P. Del Castillo, as well as those with various other third persons. Petitioners, instead, maintain that what existed between them and the third parties, including Marilou P. Del Castillo, were joint venture agreements; and that the Contract of Lease between Marilou P. Del Castillo and petitioners was a falsified document considering that the signatures of petitioner Julieta Soriano, the witnesses and of the Notary Public were all claimed to be forgeries. Petitioners then presented the supposed Joint Venture Agreement12 entered into by and between them and Marilou P. Del Castillo.
In the interregnum, before the complaint for ejectment could be resolved by the MeTC, petitioners filed a petition for consignation of rental fees for the period of January to June 1994 with the MeTC. The claim for consignation, docketed as Civil Case No. 94-0001, was grounded on the contention that respondents refused to encash the checks paid to them for the rent of the subject property.
The MeTC consolidated the two civil actions, they being closely related.
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against defendants ordering the latter and all persons claiming rights under them to vacate the premises in question and surrender possession thereof to the former; to pay plaintiff the sum of P2,662.00 a month from January, 1994 and monthly thereafter until the subject premises is actually vacated; to pay plaintiff P10,000.00 as reasonable attorney's fees and cost of suit.
It is this court (sic) considered view that the defendants failed to overcome the presumption of validity of contract. They having the one who put in issue the genuineness and due execution of the sub contract of lease have the burden of proof to prove otherwise. On the part of the plaintiffs, they have proven at the very least, that the Joint Venture Agreement has a semblance of forgery.
This is to formalize the discussion arranged by our Messrs. Ernesto Victa and Ramil Mendoza for us to use the front space of your establishment in connection with our Project: Oplan Silip Mata from October 23 to November 23, 1993. That upon your conforme of this proposal letter we are to pay the amount of three thousand five hundred (P3,500.00) pesos Philippine Currency for the use of the space. Furthermore (sic) we will pay you the sum of twenty (P20.00) pesos per day for electric consumption.
We hope you will find the foregoing proposal acceptable by signifying your conforme on the space provided below. We thank you for your accommodation for this project.
For the court, the existence of the letter bolsters the claim of respondents that portions of the subject property were indeed subleased to third parties without their concurrence, in definite violation of the provisions of the contract of lease.
On 7 April 1997, petitioners, through their counsel, the law firm Rico & Associates, received their copy of the decision of the RTC.
On 17 April 1997, or ten days later, petitioners moved for the reconsideration of the RTC decision.
On 6 May 1997, the RTC denied17 petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
On 28 May 1997, petitioners received a copy of the aforesaid denial. On the other hand, petitioners' counsel received a copy of the same on 2 June 1997.
On 6 June 1997, from the adverse decision of the RTC, petitioners' counsel went on to file a motion for extension of time to file Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals. On 18 June 1997, petitioners filed the Petition for Review docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 44365.
It appears in the record that the defendants were served with a copy of the decision of this Court on April 7, 1997. The running of the period to appeal, however, was interrupted when the defendants filed their motion for reconsideration on April 17, 1997. So that from April 7, 1997 up to the filing of the motion for reconsideration on April 17, 1997, ten (10) days have already been consumed, and there are but five (5) days remaining within which to perfect appeal or [file] Petition for Review . The order dated May 6, 1997, denying defendant's (sic) motion for reconsideration, was received by the defendants, through their collaborating counsel, Atty. Miguel Soriano, on May 28, 1997. So that if the defendants received the order on the said date, they have but up to June 2, 1997 to interpose a petition. As no appeal or Petition for Review was perfected up to this date, as admitted by Atty. Soriano in open court on said date (in the afternoon), then the decision of this Court has already become final and executory.
WHEREFORE, and in view of the foregoing, the motion for execution of judgment dated April 7, 1997, filed by the plaintiffs, is hereby granted.
By authority of the ruling in Salientes v. Intermediate Appellate Court (246 SCRA 150) and other related cases already decided, whereby execution of decisions in ejectment cases falls within the jurisdiction of the inferior court, and not the appellate court, let the record of this case be remanded to the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 79, Las PiÃ±as City, for execution of the judgment.
WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the Petition for Review is hereby DENIED for lack of merit and the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
The Motion for Extension of Time to Reply filed by petitioners and the ex-parte (sic) motion for deposit of monthly rental are hereby DENIED for being moot and academic.
The injunction granted is hereby permanently lifted.
THE COURT OF APPEALS TOTALLY IGNORED AND COMPLETELY DISREGARDED THE CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ON RECORD PROVING BEYOND PERADVENTURE THAT PETITIONERS DID NOT VIOLATE THEIR CONTRACT OF LEASE DATED 5 OCTOBER 1981 WITH PRIVATE RESPONDENTS, IN THAT, WHAT WAS ACTUALLY ENTERED INTO BETWEEN PETITIONERS AND MARILOU DEL CASTILLO WAS A JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT.
A cursory reading of the petition promptly discloses that at the core of the controversy are merely two issues. One involves a procedural matter, that is, whether or not the petition filed before the Court of Appeals was done in due time; and the other entails an issue of substance anent the existence of a contract of (sub)lease between petitioners and Marilou P. Del Castillo in violation of the contract of lease between petitioners and respondents.
Rico & Associates Law Office, counsel of petitioners, claimed that it received the copy of the order denying the motion for reconsideration only on June 2, 1997.
Records show however, that petitioner Atty. Miguel Soriano received a copy of the order of denial on May 28, 1997. x x x.
In this case, petitioner Atty. Miguel Soriano appeared as counsel for petitioners.
As to the procedural issue, we hold that the petition before the Court of Appeals was timely filed.
SEC. 2. Filing and service, defined. - Filing is the act of presenting the pleading or other paper to the clerk of court.
Service is the act of providing a party with a copy of the pleading or paper concerned. If any party has appeared by counsel, service upon him shall be made upon his counsel or one of them, unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the court. Where one counsel appears for several parties, he shall only be entitled to one copy of any paper served upon him by the opposite side.
In the case at bar, the fact that petitioner Atty. Miguel Soriano, Jr. may have appeared as counsel for himself and his wife in the proceedings before the MeTC, or signed some pleadings filed before the court, is of no moment. Firstly, despite the allegation of respondents, nothing in the record shows that petitioner Atty. Miguel Soriano, Jr. formally entered his appearance as collaborating counsel for himself and co-petitioner Julieta Soriano. Secondly, though some pleadings filed for petitioners bear the signature of petitioner Atty. Miguel Soriano, Jr. as author thereof, still, such pleadings equally display that the authorship was in behalf of the law firm Rico & Associates Law Office and its address - 4th Floor, Cattleya Condominium, 235 Salcedo St., Legaspi Village, Makati City - as stated on record, the law firm which appears to be the formal counsel of petitioners. Further, it does not appear that there was any substitution of counsel, or that service upon petitioner Atty. Miguel Soriano, Jr. had been specifically ordered by the RTC. Interestingly, though, as professed by petitioners, the order of denial of the motion for reconsideration of the decision of the RTC was the only court process sent to petitioner Atty. Miguel Soriano, Jr. This would show that it was petitioners' counsel of record, Rico & Associates Law Office, that, as a rule, received correspondence, notices and processes respecting the subject case. Accordingly, the counsel of record of petitioners, Rico & Associates Law Office, is presumed to be still and the only one authorized to receive court processes, inter alia. Notice of the denial of petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the RTC's decision, served upon the Rico & Associates Law Office, was the formal notice to petitioners. For all legal intents and purposes, the service of that notice was the trigger that started the running of the remaining five-day reglementary period within which to file the petition to the appellate court or, at the very least, a motion for extension of time to file said pleading.
Considering the prior disquisition, therefore, petitioners are deemed to have received a copy of the subject denial by the RTC of their motion for reconsideration on 2 June 1997 when their counsel of record, Rico & Associates Law Office, received the same. The remaining five-day period within which to file the petition with the appellate court should have been counted from that date. The last day, therefore, was 7 June 1997. Clearly, the petition interposed before the Court of Appeals on 6 June 1997 was filed in due time. Otherwise, to consider the operative date of receipt of the RTC Order denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration to be 28 May 1997 - - when said order was received by petitioner Atty. Miguel Soriano, Jr., who albeit appeared as a collaborating counsel as well - - is to violate Section 2 of Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. As amended, that provision states that when party is represented by counsel, service of process must be made on counsel and not on the party.
Apropos the substantial issue involved in the case at bar, petitioners contend that that the appellate court erred in holding that they subleased a portion of the subject property to Marilou P. Del Castillo in gross violation of the contract of lease executed between petitioners and respondents. They argue that the finding of the Court of Appeals that there exists a contract of (sub)lease between petitioners and Marilou P. Del Castillo is founded on a falsified contract of (sub)lease, as the signature of the witnesses and notary public therein were forgeries; thus, the contract of (sub)lease being a falsehood, the complaint of respondents is groundless. Moreover, petitioners maintain that what really exists between them and Marilou P. Del Castillo is a joint venture agreement which in no way violates the provision concerning subleasing.
Respondents argue against the above and stress that the signatures were, indeed, falsified, and that it was petitioner Julieta Soriano who was behind such deception.
The signatures of the witnesses and the notary public in the contract of lease entered into by petitioners and Marilou Del Castillo are indeed false. But by offering this document with the false signatures of the witnesses and notary public, it cannot be concluded that private respondents resorted to falsehood.
As explained by private respondents, the document was prepared by petitioners.
Marilou del Castillo also explained that when petitioners delivered to her the contract of lease, the witnesses had already signed the same and after signing, petitioner Julieta Soriano signed the name of notary public Noberto Malit, Sr. and sealed the document with the notarial seal of Norberto Malit. Marilou del Castillo claimed that petitioner Julieta Soriano signs (sic) for Norberto Malit because the latter is a law partner of petitioner Atty. Miguel Soriano.
We give credence to this testimony of Marilou del Castillo. It is a common knowledge and practice that it is the lessor who prepares the contract which would govern the lease of the lessee. The lessee usually signs.
This is especially true in this case because petitioner Atty. Miguel Soriano, the lessor is a lawyer who knows the "know-hows" on the preparation of the contract of lease.
Being the lessor of the leased premises (between petitioners and Marilou del Castillo) and being a lawyer at the same time, it would indeed be possible, basing it from usual experience, that petitioners were the ones who prepared their contract of lease with Marilou del Castillo.
On the whole, the petition is devoid of merit.
Alas, we find none of the exceptions to be present in the case at bar; therefore, we see no reason to depart from the general rule. The findings of fact of the three courts are fully substantiated by the evidence extant on record.
The foregoing discussion notwithstanding, we have reviewed the records of the case at bar and find no reversible error committed by the Court of Appeals concerning the merits of the present petition. Without need to go into the fundamentals of the mendacity surrounding the signature of the witnesses and the notary public found on the subject contract of (sub)lease, the resolution of the present controversy is uncomplicated. It boils down to the consent of petitioner Julieta Soriano and Marilou P. Del Castillo as evidenced by the legitimate signatures thereon. It has been proved adequately to this Court that there exists a valid contract of (sub)lease between petitioners and Marilou P. Del Castillo. The concurrence of the fact that the latter acknowledges having signed the contract along with petitioner Julieta Soriano, and of the fact that the signatures of the witnesses and notary public are forgeries, do not negate the presence of a valid contract of (sub)lease. The signatures of the witnesses and the notary public are considered necessary simply to make the contract binding on third parties. It would have been a different matter had petitioners alleged and offered evidence to show that the signatures of petitioner Julieta Soriano and Marilou P. Del Castillo, parties to the contract of (sub)lease, were forgeries as well - which would mean that parties to the assailed contract did not give their consent. Absence of consent between the parties means that there was no contract of (sub)lease; hence, petitioners would not be deemed to have violated the prohibition on sublease, which was barred by the contract of lease between them and respondents.
In fine, as correctly held by no less than three courts, there exists a contract of (sub)lease between petitioners and a third party, which is in clear violation of the prohibition contained in the contract of lease entered into by petitioners and respondents.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed 18 August 1997 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 44365, is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
Ynares-Santiago, J., Chairperson, , Austria-Martinez, Nachura, Reyes, JJ., concur.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria with Associate Justices Salome A. Montoya and Portia AliÃ±o Hormachuelos, concurring; id. at 39-51.
3 Penned by Judge Florentino M. Alumbres. CA rollo, pp. 39-42.
4 Penned by Judge Pio M. Pasia. Id. at 309-314.
8 Covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. S33221 issued by the Office of the Register of Deeds for the Province of Rizal. Id.
9 No. 5 of the terms and conditions of the contract of lease. Id. at 210.
24 Petition, p. 14; rollo, p. 22.
32 VICENTE J. FRANCISCO, THE REVISED RULES OF COURT IN THE PHILIPPINES, p. 759 (1973), citing Neff v. City of Indianapolis, 198 N.E. 328.
33 Reyes v. Commission on Elections, 324 Phil. 813, 823-824 (1996).
34 Gundayao v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 77459, 21 May 1990, 185 SCRA 606, 611-612.
35 National Investment and Development Corporation-Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, 337 Phil. 217, 222 (1997).
36 Magno v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-58781, 31 July 1987, 52 SCRA 555, 558.
37 De Leon v. Court of Appeals, 432 Phil. 775, 788 (2002).
38 Somoso v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 78050, 23 October 1989, 178 SCRA 654, 662-663.
39 Basco v. Court of Appeals, 383 Phil. 671, 687 (2000).
43 Dr. Batiquin v. Court of Appeals, 327 Phil. 965, 974-975 (1996).
44 Pacific Airways Corporation v. Tonda, 441 Phil. 156, 161-162 (2002).
45 Nazareno v. Court of Appeals, 397 Phil. 707, 724-725 (2000).
46 Joaquin v. Navarro, 93 Phil. 257, 270 (1953).
47 Luna v. Linatoc, 74 Phil. 15 (1942).
48 Buyco v. People, 95 Phil. 453, 461 (1954).
49 De la Cruz v. Sosing, 94 Phil. 26, 28 (1953).
50 Casica v. Villaseca, 101 Phil. 1205 (1957).
51 Larena v. Mapili, 455 Phil. 944, 950 (2003).
52 Josefa v. Zhandong Trading Corp., 462 Phil. 751, 757 (2003).
53 Philippine National Bank v. Heirs of Estanislao Militar, G.R. No. 164801, 30 June 2006, 494 SCRA 308, 320.
54 Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation v. Unknown Owner of the Vessel M/V "National Honor", G.R. No. 161833, 8 July 2005, 463 SCRA 202, 215.
55 Local Superior of the Servants of Charity (Guanellians), Inc. v. Jody King Construction and Development Corpotation, G.R. No. 141715, 12 October 2005, 472 SCRA 445, 451-452.
56 Cirelos v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 146523, 15 June 2006, 490 SCRA 625, 635.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
In fine
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.