G.R. No. 80486 November 15, 1989
SPOUSES SALVADOR AND IGNACIA ESMILLA, petitioners, vs. FEDERICO ALVAREZ, JESUS SAMORTIN, RAYMUNDO REMOLLINO, AND THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 102, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Spouses Esmilla secured a favorable judgment in ejectment cases against private respondents from the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Quezon City. Private respondents received the MTC decision on January 19, 1987, but filed their notice of appeal only on February 5, 1987, which was two days beyond the 15-day reglementary period. The MTC thus granted the motion for execution. Private respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court (G.R. Nos. 77702-05), which was dismissed, with the Court ruling that certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal. The dismissal became final on June 15, 1987. Subsequently, private respondents filed an action for annulment of the MTC judgment with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), docketed as Civil Case No. Q-51057. They alleged the MTC lacked jurisdiction because the occupied lots were covered by Presidential Decree No. 1517 (Urban Land Reform Law), granting them protection from ejectment. The RTC issued a preliminary injunction against the execution of the MTC judgment.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of the action for annulment of judgment and in issuing a preliminary injunction, despite the final and executory status of the MTC ejectment decision.

RULING

Yes, the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition, ordered the dismissal of Civil Case No. Q-51057, and made the temporary restraining order permanent. The legal logic is anchored on the finality of judgments and the doctrine of res judicata. The MTC judgment had become final and executory due to private respondents’ failure to perfect a timely appeal. This finality was affirmed by the Supreme Court’s prior resolution in G.R. Nos. 77702-05. An action for annulment of judgment cannot be used as an indirect substitute for a lost appeal. For such an action to prosper, it must be based on grounds like extrinsic fraud, lack of jurisdiction, or a patent nullity of the judgment. Here, private respondents merely reasserted their claim under P.D. 1517, which does not negate the MTC’s jurisdiction over the ejectment suit. The Court clarified that while P.D. 1517 grants qualified tenants a right of first refusal if the owner intends to sell the property, it does not automatically bar ejectment for lawful grounds such as non-payment of rent. The RTC’s assumption of jurisdiction to annul a final judgment, under these circumstances, constituted a capricious and whimsical exercise of power, correctible by certiorari.