GR 120408; (April, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 120408 April 18, 1997
PHILGREEN TRADING CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS; HON. ERNA F. ALIPOSA, as Judge, RTC of Makati, Metro Manila, Branch 150; and UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Philgreen was the highest bidder for a foreclosed property owned by respondent United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB). They executed a Contract to Sell, with Philgreen taking possession but with title remaining with UCPB until full payment. Before the payment period expired, Philgreen discovered the property was sequestered by the PCGG as alleged ill-gotten wealth. Philgreen filed a case for specific performance (Civil Case No. 88-477) against UCPB to compel it to clear the title. Separately, UCPB filed an ejectment case against Philgreen for failure to pay the balance. The Metropolitan Trial Court ruled for UCPB in the ejectment case.
Philgreen appealed the ejectment decision to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Before the RTC, Philgreen moved to suspend the ejectment appeal pending resolution of its specific performance case, arguing the latter was determinative of the parties’ rights. The RTC granted the suspension. UCPB filed a “Motion to Reopen Case with Motion to Resolve Motion for Execution Pending Appeal,” which the RTC denied, characterizing it as a prohibited second motion for reconsideration and noting the execution motion was not properly before it.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly granted UCPB’s petition for certiorari, reversing the RTC’s order suspending the ejectment appeal.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed that the pendency of an action for specific performance does not bar the continuation of an ejectment case. Ejectment cases, being summary in nature, are designed to provide a swift remedy for unlawful deprivation of possession. The issues in an ejectment suit are limited to physical possession, not ownership. The resolution of the specific performance case, which involves the validity of the Contract to Sell and the clearing of title, is a separate matter that does not preclude the ejectment court from determining who has a better right of possession based on the terms of their agreement.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled that UCPB’s petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals was filed on time. The period for filing a certiorari petition under Rule 65 is a reasonable time, with three months generally considered reasonable. The reckoning point for the period was the receipt of the RTC order denying the “Motion to Reopen,” not the earlier order suspending proceedings. Since UCPB filed its petition within two months from that denial, it was filed within a reasonable period. The RTC correctly treated the Motion to Reopen as a second motion for reconsideration, which is a prohibited pleading.