Republic v. Sunvar Realty, 674 SCRA 320, 20 Jun.
2012 A final notice to vacate within 15 days was sent to
Facts:
On 26 Dec. 1977, petitioners leased the 4 parcels of
land including the subject property to the Tech.
Resource Center Foundation, Inc. (TRCFI) for a period of
25 yrs. beginning on 1 Jan. 1978 up until 31 Dec. 2002.
Under the contract of lease (main lease contract),
petitioners granted TRCFI the right to sublease any
portion of the parcels of land.
Exercising its right, TRCFI subleased a majority of the
subj. property to respondent through several sublease
agreements. Said sublease agreements are set to expire
on 31 Dec. 2002, the expiration date of TRCFI’s main
lease contract with petitioners, but subject to renewal
at the option of respondent.
In all the sublease agreements, respondent agreed to
return or surrender the subleased land, without any
delay whatsoever upon the termination or expiration of
the sublease contract or any renewal extension thereof.
During the period of sublease, respondent introduced
useful improvements therein. Sometime in 1987 TRCFI
was dissolved and PH. Devt. Alters. Foundation (PDAF)
was created assuming the functions previously
performed by TRCFI.
Less than a year before the sublease agreements,
respondent wrote PDAF, expressing its desire to
exercise the option to renew the sublease over the subj.
property with increased rental rate for another 25 yrs.
Respondent likewise wrote to the Office of the Pres,
DENR and NPC, expressing the same desire to renew
the lease.
On 3 Jun. 2002, petitioner NPC notified PDAF that it will
not renew the lease. In turn, PDAF notified respondent
of NPC’s decision. Petitioner Republic notified PDAF that
it will not renew the lease contract. Petitioner Republic
reasoned that the parties had earlier agreed to shorten
the corporate life of PDAF and to transfer the latter’s
asset to it for the purpose of raising funds.
PDAF duly informed respondent of petitioner Republic’s
decision not to renew the lease. Upon expiration of the
main lease contract with PDAF, as well as its sublease
agreements with respondent, petitioners recovered
from PDAF all the rights over the subj. property and the
3 other parcels of land.
Consequently, petitioner Republic transferred the subj.
property to the PMO for disposition. Nevertheless,
respondent continued to occupy the property.
6 years aver the main lease contract expired, petitioner
Republic advised respondent to completely vacate the
subj. property within 30 days. Respondent failed to
vacate the property.
respondent and again, respondent refused to vacate.
On 23 Jul. 2009, petitioners filed a complaint for
unlawful detainer with MeTC prayed that respondent
be ordered to vacate the subj. property and to pay
damages for the illegal use and lost income owing to
them.
Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint arguing,
among others, that petitioners’ cause of action was
more properly an accion publiciana, which fell within
the jurisdiction of the RTC, considering that the
petitioners’ supposed dispossession of the subj.
property by respondent had already lasted for more
than 1yr.
MeTC denied the motion to dismiss and directed
respondent to file an answer. Despite the filing of its
answer, respondent filed a Rule 65 Petition for
Certiorari with RTC to assail the denial by the MeTC of
its motion to dismiss.
Petitioners placed in issue the jurisdiction of the RTC
and reasoned that the Rules on Summary Procedure
expressly prohibited the filing of a petition for certiorari
against the interlocutory order of the MeTC.
RTC ruled in favor respondent. The RTC granted the
Rule 65 petition and directed MeTC to dismiss the
complaint for unlawful detainer for lack of jurisdiction.
The RTC reasoned that the 1yr period for the filing of an
unlawful detainer case was reckoned from the
expiration of the main lease contract and the sublease
agreements on 31 Dec. 2002. Petitioners should have
then filed an accion publiciana with the RTC in 2009,
instead of an unlawful detainer suit. Hence, the instant
Rule 45 Petition filed by petitioners.
Issue:
Whether the RTC violated the Rules when it took
cognizance and granted the certiorari petition against
the denial by the MeTC of the motion to dismiss filed by
respondent.
Held:
RTC erroneously took cognizance of the Rule 65 petition
of respondent since the Rules on Summary Procedure
expressly prohibit this relief for unfavorable
interlocutory orders of the MeTC.
Under the Rules on Summary Procedure, a certiorari
petition under Rule 65 against an interlocutory order
issued by the court in a summary proceeding is a
prohibited pleading.
The RTC should have dismissed outright respondent
Rule 65 petition, considering that it is a prohibited
pleading. Petitioners have already alerted the RTC of
this legal bar and immediately prayed for the dismissal
of the certiorari petition. Yet, the RTC not only refused
to dismiss the certiorari Petition, but even proceeded to
hear the Rule 65 Petition on the merits.

The general rule is that no special civil action for

certiorari may be filed with a superior court from cases
covered by the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure.

If the Court were to relax the interpretation of the

prohibition against the filing of certiorari petitions
under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, the
RTCs may be inundated with similar prayers from
adversely affected parties questioning every order of
the lower court and completely dispensing with the goal
of summary proceedings in forcible entry or unlawful
detainer suits.