G.R. No. 176511; August 4, 2009
SPOUSES OBDULIA H. ESPEJO and HILDELBERTO T. ESPEJO, Petitioners, vs. GERALDINE COLOMA ITO, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners, spouses Espejo, filed an unlawful detainer complaint against respondent Ito before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati. They claimed ownership of an apartment unit occupied by Ito by virtue of a deed of donation from Obdulia’s mother, Teodora, and demanded payment of accrued rentals and her ejectment. Ito, in her Answer, admitted leasing the property but asserted her lessor was Rogelio Hemedes, Obdulia’s brother, who inherited it under Teodora’s will. She argued petitioners had no cause of action as they were never her lessors and their ownership was contested in pending probate and annulment cases involving Teodora’s estate.
The MeTC ruled for the Espejos, ordering Ito to vacate and pay rentals. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed, dismissing the complaint for lack of cause of action, finding the issue of possession inextricably linked to the unresolved question of ownership pending in other courts. The Espejos then filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the petition outright due to the petitioners’ failure to attach a copy of the unlawful detainer complaint to their petition, as required by the Rules of Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for review for failure to attach the complaint, a mandatory requirement under the rules.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed that the attachment of the complaint or complaint and answer in an appeal via a Petition for Review under Rule 42 is mandatory and jurisdictional. This requirement is explicitly stated in Section 2(d), Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. The logic is fundamental: the complaint is the very foundation of the ejectment case. Its omission prevents the appellate court from properly reviewing the factual and legal bases of the MeTC and RTC decisions. It deprives the court of the primary document that frames the cause of action and the reliefs sought.
The Court rejected the petitioners’ argument that the defect was merely formal. The rule is designed to ensure that the appellate court has a complete record to determine whether the RTC correctly decided the case. Without the complaint, the CA cannot intelligently ascertain the allegations upon which the entire ejectment suit rests. The petitioners’ failure to comply was not a minor procedural lapse but a fatal omission that warranted the dismissal of their appeal. The Court emphasized that rules of procedure, especially those governing appeals, must be strictly followed to ensure orderly administration of justice. The dismissal for non-compliance was thus proper and in accordance with law.