Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=40387:g-r-nos-135180-81-amp-135425-26-august-16,-2000-jose-b-l-reyes-v-court-of-appeals,-et-al&amp;catid=1396&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 08:55:42+00:00

Document:
Heirs of the Late Justice JOSE B. L. REYES represented by ADORACION D. REYES and Heirs of EDMUNDO A. REYES, namely, MA. TERESA P. REYES and CARLOS P. REYES, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS AND METRO MANILA BUILDERS, INC., Respondents.
The factual background of the case dates back to November 30, 1976. Brothers Justice Jose Benedicto Luna Reyes (also known as Justice J. B. L. Reyes) and Dr. Edmundo A. Reyes were co-owners of a parcel of land located at Taft Avenue, Pasay City, near Buendia, with a land area of more than one hectare, covered by two Transfer Certificates of Title8 . On November 30, 1976, the brothers entered into a 25-year lease contract 9 with Metro Manila Builders, Inc. (MMB, Inc.) at a very low rate of rental (P15,000.00 to P30,000.00 a month) in consideration of the fact that the lessee would cover all present and future improvements in the property with insurance against certain risks and maintain the premises in good, sanitary and tenantable condition at all times.
Failing to do so, on February 3, 1997, petitioners filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court, Pasay City, Branch 45 a complaint for unlawful detainer 10 based on breach of the contract of lease.
On November 26, 1997, MTC Branch 45, Pasay City, 16 granted the motion for execution that petitioners filed. Consequently, on December 1, 1997, the trial court issued the corresponding writ of execution. 17 However, on December 8, 1997, the Court of Appeals issued a temporary restraining order 18 against the execution of the ejectment.
Simultaneously with the withdrawal of the first CA case, 21 on February 17, 1998, private respondent also filed a petition for annulment of the ejectment decision before the Regional Trial Court, Pasay City, Branch 231 (RTC 231) 22 on the ground that the MTC had no jurisdiction over the ejectment case. MMB, Inc. prayed for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction against the execution of the ejectment decision. The court, however, did not issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) against MTC Branch 45, Pasay City.
6.1	What gave petitioner away is its silence on why it failed, nay refused to raise the issue of jurisdiction in its petition before the appellate court. Jurisdiction it is elementary may be raised anytime even before the first time on appeal. (Gov’t. v. American Surety Company 11 PHIL 203; Vda. De Roxas v. Rafferty, 37 PHIL 957; People v. Que Po Lay, 94 PHIL 64003.
On May 20, 1998, respondent MMB, Inc. filed with the Court of Appeals 38 another case seeking to set aside the order of the RTC Pasay, Branch 231, dismissing the action and praying that a temporary restraining order be issued against the MTC-45 Pasay City enjoining the writ of execution issued in Civil Case No. 113-97, to desist from proceeding with CA-G. R. SP No. 47158, to declare the order of respondent judge in Civil Case No. 98-0366 as null and void for being issued in grave abuse of discretion, without or in excess of its jurisdiction, and to declare the TRO/injunction permanent.
On July 2, 1998, respondents filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 110, Pasay City a petition seeking a temporary restraining order to enjoin MTC Branch 45, Pasay City, 43 and the sheriff 44 from enforcing the writ of execution issued on December 1, 1997.
"Accordingly, this Court hereby RESOLVES to grant the instant petition.
"1.	A writ of Execution Pending Appeal of the Decision of this Court dated August 21, 1998 is hereby issued.
"2.	Private respondents and their counsel are hereby adjudged guilty of indirect contempt of this Honorable Court and are hereby sentenced to pay a fine of P30,000.00. Private respondents and counsel are also directed to make a complete restoration to petitioner of the subject property.
3.	In immediately executing its resolution dated September 18, 1998, transferring possession of the property from petitioners to respondent MMB, Inc. by a special sheriff.
4.	In declaring petitioners guilty of indirect contempt of court, and sentencing them to pay a fine of P30,000.00.
The crux of the case is whether there was a need for judicial rescission of the contract of lease before respondent MMB, Inc. may be compelled to move out of the leased premises.
We find the petitions impressed with merit.
"Section 18, paragraph 4 (a) In the event of default or breach of any of the condition of this contract . . . .
(b)	. . . the LESSOR may, in his absolute discretion declare the contract cancelled and terminated and require the TENANT to vacate the leased premises . . .
3.	Par. 11 of the contract requiring defendant to secure LESSOR’s prior written consent before it may assign or transfer any of its rights under the contacts.
The basic issue having been disposed of, we need not resolve the other issues petitioners raised.
Costs against respondent MMB, Inc.
Let a copy of this decision be furnished to the Presiding Justice, Court of Appeals, Manila, for dissemination to the Associate Justices, Court of Appeals, for their information and guidance.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Melo, Puno, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Vitug, J., took no part; close relationship with some parties.
1.	In CA-G. R. SP No. 47158 and SP No. 47720, promulgated on August 21, 1998, Demetria, J., ponente, Barcelona and Barrios, JJ., concurring. G. R. Nos. 135180-81 Rollo, pp. 10-17.
2.	In Civil Case No. 113-97, Decision, dated May 9, 1997.
3.	In Civil Case No. 98-0366, Orders dated March 23 and April 14, 1998.
4.	In the same cases CA-G. R. SP No. 47158 and SP No. 47720.
5.	CA G.R. SP No. 47158 and SP No. 47720, Resolution, September 18, 1998. G. R. Nos. 135425-26, Rollo, pp. 35-38.
6.	Writ of Execution, dated September 21, 1998, Ibid., Rollo, pp. 39-40.
7.	Enforced by Mr. Efren Revamonte, designated Special Sheriff by the Court of Appeals, Mailing Section, Rollo, p. 39.
8.	G. R. Nos. 135180-81, Petition, Annexes "A" and "B", Rollo, pp. 103-105.
9.	Ibid., Annex "C", pp. 106-120.
10.	Docketed as Civil Case No. 113-97; G. R. Nos. 135180-81, Petition, Annex "B" Rollo, pp. 95-137.
11.	G. R. Nos. 135180-81. Petition, par. 9.1. Annex "E." Rollo, pp. 354-356.
12.	G. R Nos. 135180-81, MTC Decision, Civil Case No. 113-97, Judge Manuel G. Garcia (MTC Branch 45, Pasay City), Petition, Annex "C", Rollo, pp. 138-145.
13.	Petition, par. 9.3, Rollo, p. 26.
14.	Docketed as Civil Case No. 97-0976; Petition, par. 9.4, Rollo, p. 26.
15.	Docketed as CA-G. R SP No. 45853 (First CA Case). Petition, CA Rollo, pp. 8-43.
16.	Presided over by Judge Zenaida G. Laguilles.
17.	G.R Nos. 135180-81, Rollo, pp. 562-563.
18.	G.R. Nos. 135180-81, CA Resolution, Rollo, pp. 181-182.
19.	CA-G. R SP No. 45853, filed on February 16, 1998. CA Rollo, Vol. 2, pp. 228.
20.	CA-G. R SP No. 45853, CA Rollo, Vol. 1, p. 251.
21.	CA-G. R SP No. 45853.
22.	Docketed as Civil Case No. 98-0366, presided over by Judge Cesar Z. Ylagan; G. R Nos. 135180-81, Petition, Annex "H", Rollo, pp. 185-250.
23.	Ibid., Petition, Annex, Rollo, pp. 251-265.
24.	Ibid., Petition, Annex, Rollo, pp. 266-282.
25.	Docketed as CA-G. R. SP No. 47158 (second CA Case).
26.	Petition, CA-G. R. No. SP 47158, CA Rollo, pp. 2-19, at p. 10.
27.	G.R. Nos. 135180-81, Petition, Annex "K-1", Rollo, pp. 357-358.
28.	B.P. No. 129, Section 11.
29.	Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, Rule 6, Section 2 (c) (2).
30.	Cf. Rule 58, Section 2, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended; Rule 3, Section 9 (b), Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, as amended.
31.	G.R. Nos. 135180-81, Petition, Annex "M", Rollo, pp. 362-363.
32.	Which we hold to be void, supra.
33.	G.R. Nos. 135180-81, Petition, pars. 13 et seq. pp. 31-32.
34.	G.R Nos. 135180-81, Petition, par. 13.1, Rollo, p. 32.
35.	CA-G. R. SP No. 47158.
36.	Filed on May 19, 1998, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-98-34382; Petition, Annex "S" (Annex "C"), Rollo, pp. 571-578.
37.	G.R Nos. 135180-81, Petition, par. 13.6, Rollo, p. 33.
38.	Docketed as CA-G. R. SP No. 47720 (third CA case). G. R. Nos. 135180-81 Petition, Annex "O" Rollo, pp. 368-379.
39.	CA-G. R SP No. 47158.
40.	CA-G. R. SP No. 47720.
42.	G.R. Nos. 135425-26, Petition, Annex "K", Rollo, pp. 148-150.
43.	Now presided over by Judge Zenaida G. Laguilles.
44.	Docketed as Civil Case No. 98-1171.
45.	G.R. Nos. 135425-26, decision, CA-G. R. SP No. 47158 and SP No. 47720, promulgated on August 21, 1998, Petition, Annex "B." Rollo, pp. 42-49.
46.	G.R. Nos. 135425-26, Petition, Annex "C", Rollo, pp. 50-52.
47.	Ibid., Annex "C-1", Rollo, p. 53.
48.	Ibid., Annex "D", Rollo, pp. 54-56.
49.	Ibid., Annex "E", Rollo, pp. 57-59.
50.	CA-G. R. SP No. 47158 and SP No. 47720, CA Rollo, pp. 506-507.
52.	G. R. Nos. 135425-26, Petition, par. 3.5, Rollo, p. 9.
54.	G. R. Nos. 135180-81, Petition for Review, Rollo, pp. 19- 76.
55.	G. R. Nos. 135425-26, Petition, Annex "G", Rollo, pp. 62-72.
56.	Petition, Annex "A-l" Resolution, Rollo, pp. 35-38.
57.	Mr. Efren Revamonte, designated by the Court of Appeals, mailing section, Rollo, p. 39.
58.	CA-G. R. SP No. 47158 and SP No. 47720, CA Rollo, pp. 569-571.
59.	G.R. Nos. 135425-26, Petition for Certiorari, Rollo, pp. 3-33.
60.	People’s Industrial and Commercial Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 281 SCRA 206, 216  citing Manila Bay Club Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 315 Phil. 805, 826 ; Heirs of Juan San Andres v. Rodriguez, G. R. No. 135634, May 31, 2000.
61.	Pangilinan v. Court of Appeals, 279 SCRA 590 ; Jison v. Court of Appeals, 164 SCRA 339, 344 .
62.	Rule 58, Section 5, last par., 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
63.	Comm. of Immigration v. Cloribel, 127 Phil. 716 ; Yasay v. Recto, G.R. No. 129521, September 7, 1999, citing Nazareno v. Barnes, 136 SCRA 57 ; Pacuribot v. Lim, Jr., 275 SCRA 543 .
64.	Yasay v. Recto, supra, Note 63, citing Dee v. SEC, 199 SCRA 238 .
65.	Yasay v. Recto, supra, Note 63.
66.	See Rule 51, Section 11, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
67.	Del Callar v. Salvador, 268 SCRA 320 ; Mancenido v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 118605, April 12, 2000.
68.	Yasuda v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 112569, April 12, 2000, Sanz Maceda, Jr. v. Development Bank of the Philippines, G. R. No. 135128, August 26, 1999; Diesel Construction Co., Inc. v. Jollibee Foods Corp., G. R. No. 136805, January 28, 2000.
69.	Federation of United Namarco Distributors, Inc. v. National Marketing Corporation 4 SCRA 867 ; Bell Carpets International Trading Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 185 SCRA 35.
70.	Yasuda v. Court of Appeals, supra, Note 68.
71.	G. R. Nos. 135425-26, Petition, Annex "A-l", Rollo, pp. 3-38, at pp. 36-37.
72.	Diesel Construction Co., Inc. v. Jollibee Foods Corp., supra, Note 68.
73.	Garcia v. Burgos, 353 Phil. 740 .
74.	Conducto v. Judge Monzon, 353 Phil. 796, 813 .
75.	Albert v. Court of First Instance of Manila, 28 SCRA 948, 961 .
76.	People v. Santos, 104 Phil. 551, 560 ; Conducto v. Judge Monzon, supra, Note 74, citing Vivo v. Cloribel, 18 SCRA 713 .
77.	Sanz-Maceda v. Development Bank of the Philippines, supra, Note 68.
78.	Venus v. Desierto, 298 SCRA 196 .
79.	In G. R. Nos. 135180-81, filed on-September 14, 1998.
80.	Rule 51, Sec. 10, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
81.	On September 14, 1998, with notice to the Court of Appeals.
82.	Comm. of Public Highways v. San Diego, 31 SCRA 616, 631  .
83.	Revised Administrative Code of 1917, Section 330.
84.	Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Veneracion, A. M. No. RTJ-99- 1432, June 21. 2000.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.