Tuting v. RIZA Development Corp.

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 260026. August 24, 2022.]

CARTY TUTING, petitioner,vs.RIZA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 24, 2022, which reads as follows: HTcADC

"G.R. No. 260026 (Carty Turing v. RIZA Development Corporation). — The Court GRANTS petitioner's motion for an extension of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari.

After an assiduous review of the case at bench, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition for Review on Certiorari1 and AFFIRM the Decision2 dated 20 January 2021 and the Resolution3 dated 15 February 2022 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 108761. The CA issuances upheld the dismissal of petitioner's Petition for Annulment of Judgment 4 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Mateo, Rizal, Branch 75, for lack of legal basis, and denied the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration 5 thereof, respectively, in Civil Case No. 2603-13-SM.

As infallibly held by the CA, the remedy of annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court is extraordinary in character and can only be permitted in exceptional cases. 6 Owing to its exceptional character, the limitations and guidelines set forth by Rule 47 of the Rules of Court must be strictly complied with. 7 Notably, the very first limitation under the rules is that an action for the annulment of judgment may only be availed of when the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief, or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. 8 As declared by the CA, petitioner's appeal was foreclosed by his own negligence when he moved for the reconsideration of the Decision 9 of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), which granted the respondent's complaint for unlawful detainer despite such motion being prohibited under the Rules on Summary Procedure. 10 Thus, petitioner had no one to blame but himself for the lapse of the reglementary period. It is primal that an action for annulment of judgment cannot, and is not, a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal. 11 "Its obvious rationale is to prevent the party from benefiting from his inaction or negligence," 12 as in this case.

Moreover, petitioner's avowal that the MTC had no jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case deserves scant consideration. "It is axiomatic that the nature of an action and whether the tribunal has jurisdiction over such action are to be determined from the material allegations of the complaint, the law in force at the time the complaint is filed, and the character of the relief sought irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims averred." 13 The CA unerringly declared that the material allegations in respondent's complaint before the MTC clearly made out a case for ejectment rather than one for the cancellation of the Contract to Sell between the parties. There is likewise no merit in petitioner's contention that the MTC lacked jurisdiction given that the assessed value of the property exceeded P20,000.00. An action for unlawful detainer is undoubtedly within the MTC's exclusive jurisdiction regardless of the property's assessed value. 14

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 13-64.

2.Id. at 65-78. Penned by Associate Justice Pablito A. Perez with Associate Justices Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison and Raymond Reynold Reyes Lauigan, concurring.

3.Id. at 79-82.

4.Id. at 92-104.

5.Id. at 83-91.

6. See Spouses Alvarez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 192472, 3 June 2019.

7. See Aquino v. Tangkengko, 793 Phil. 715, 721 (2016).

8. See Section 1, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.

9.Id. at 176-180. Penned by Presiding Judge Maribeth Rodriguez-Manahan.

10. See Section 19 (c), Rules on Summary Procedure.

11. See Frias v. Alcayde, 826 Phil. 713, 743-744 (2018).

12.Id. at 744.

13.Spouses Ansok v. Tingas, G.R. No. 251537, 25 November 2020.

14. See Spouses Erorita v. Spouses Dumlao, 779 Phil. 23, 29 (2016).