GR 119337; (June, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 119337 June 17, 1997
BAYVIEW HOTEL, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND CLUB FILIPINO, INC. DE CEBU, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Bayview Hotel, Inc. entered into a 30-year lease contract with private respondent Club Filipino, Inc. De Cebu over a parcel of land in Cebu City on May 27, 1959, with an option to renew for ten more years. The contract stipulated that ownership of the building and improvements constructed by the petitioner would transfer to the private respondent upon the lease’s expiration. Before the lease expired on December 31, 1992, petitioner notified private respondent of its intention to extend the lease under different terms, but no agreement was reached. Private respondent then sent a notice to vacate and demand for accrued rentals. On May 18, 1993, private respondent filed a complaint for ejectment and recovery of accrued rentals in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Cebu. Before petitioner was served with summons, the leased building was destroyed by fire. Petitioner filed an answer raising affirmative defenses, including that the fire extinguished the lease and the ejectment action was moot. Petitioner moved for a preliminary hearing on these defenses, which the MTC denied. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which granted it and ordered the MTC to dismiss the ejectment case. Private respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the RTC decision. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Metropolitan Trial Court lost jurisdiction over the ejectment case after the building was totally destroyed by fire.
2. Whether the MTC should have conducted a preliminary hearing on the affirmative defenses raised in the answer.
3. Whether the Regional Trial Court could entertain a petition for certiorari against an interlocutory order in a case governed by the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure.
RULING
1. No. The MTC did not lose jurisdiction. The case involves a land lease. Private respondent alleged that petitioner was still occupying the land despite the building’s destruction. If true, the action remains one for unlawful detainer concerning possession of the land, which falls within the MTC’s jurisdiction. The claim that private respondent was already in full possession is a factual question to be decided by the MTC.
2. No. While parties may file an answer with affirmative defenses in cases under summary procedure, trial courts are enjoined from conducting a preliminary hearing on such defenses to prevent delay and ensure the summary disposition of ejectment cases.
3. No. Section 19 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure explicitly prohibits petitions for certiorari against any interlocutory order issued by the court in cases covered by the Rules. The filing of such a petition with the RTC was therefore not permissible.