G.R. No. 103277 February 3, 1994
ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND JOHANNESBURG PACKAGING CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

The Paragon Paper Industries Inc. mortgaged the Paragon Paper Mill to the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). Upon default, DBP foreclosed and acquired the property. On August 1, 1986, DBP conducted a public bidding for the sale of the mill. Private respondent Johannesburg Packaging Corporation won with a cash bid of P120,579,000.00, subject to Presidential approval and payment within 30 days from notice of such approval. On October 13, 1986, DBP allowed private respondent to enter the premises to clean, repair, and test run the mill, but not to operate it pending approval. On January 9, 1987, private respondent received notice of the President’s approval. However, due to private respondent’s failure to pay despite extensions, DBP rescinded the award on May 22, 1987. Private respondent filed Civil Case No. 16960 in the RTC of Makati contesting the rescission. The property was later transferred to petitioner Asset Privatization Trust (APT) under Proclamation No. 50. Private respondent proposed to purchase the mill from APT but again failed to pay. APT demanded that private respondent vacate the premises. Upon refusal, APT filed a complaint for unlawful detainer before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) in Orani-Samal, Bataan. The MCTC applied the Rules on Summary Procedure, rendered a decision ordering private respondent to vacate, which was affirmed by the RTC. The Court of Appeals reversed, dismissing the complaint, ruling that the Summary Procedure was improper due to the raised issue of ownership, the complaint lacked jurisdictional clarity, and a Temporary Restraining Order from the RTC Makati in Civil Case No. 16960 prohibited repossession.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Rule on Summary Procedure is applicable in this case.
2. Whether the complaint is for unlawful detainer.

RULING

1. Yes, the Rule on Summary Procedure is applicable. The appellate court erred in ruling it was improper simply because the issue of ownership was raised in a separate case (Civil Case No. 16960). Citing Sy vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court held that the applicability of summary procedure in ejectment cases cannot be thwarted by a defendant filing a separate action contesting ownership in another court. The pendency of an action for annulment of sale does not abate an unlawful detainer action. Furthermore, the issue is moot as the revised 1991 Rules on Summary Procedure, effective November 15, 1991, mandate that all forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases be tried under summary procedure regardless of whether ownership is pleaded. Procedural laws can be given retroactive effect, and there are no vested rights in rules of procedure.
2. Yes, the complaint is for unlawful detainer. The appellate court erred in characterizing it as forcible entry. The complaint’s allegations show petitioner APT allowed private respondent to continue in possession due to its promise to purchase the property. Private respondent’s lawful possession became illegal after it failed to pay despite demands, making unlawful detainer the proper remedy. Finally, the Court noted that the Temporary Restraining Order from the RTC Makati cited by the Court of Appeals was no longer an impediment, as the Supreme Court, in G.R. No. 101344, had modified the Court of Appeals’ decision sustaining it, thereby removing any legal barrier to petitioner’s repossession.
The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Decision of the Court of Appeals, REINSTATED the Decision of the RTC ordering private respondent to vacate, and made the Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Supreme Court permanent.