GR 85448; (February, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 85448 February 21, 1990
BANCO DE ORO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND SPOUSES ABELARDO AND ALEGRIA NERY, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Banco de Oro granted a loan to respondent spouses Nery, secured by a real estate mortgage. Due to the Nerys’ default, the mortgaged property was foreclosed and sold at public auction, with the Bank as the highest bidder. After the redemption period lapsed, the Bank consolidated its title. The Nerys, however, refused to vacate. They requested time to repurchase and obligated themselves to pay monthly rentals for their continued occupation, which they did for several months. As they and their tenants eventually stopped paying, the Bank filed three ejectment suits before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) in October 1984. The MTC ruled in favor of the Bank, ordering the Nerys to vacate and pay compensation.
The Nerys did not appeal the MTC decision nor post a supersedeas bond. The MTC thus granted the Bank’s motion for execution. The Nerys then filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), challenging the MTC’s jurisdiction. The RTC denied their application for a preliminary injunction. Subsequently, the Nerys filed a petition with the Court of Appeals, which issued a temporary restraining order and later a writ of preliminary injunction, enjoining the enforcement of the MTC decision. The Bank elevated the case to the Supreme Court via this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the final and executory MTC ejectment decision.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the appellate court’s resolutions. The legal logic is twofold. First, the MTC properly acquired jurisdiction over the ejectment suits. The Nerys argued the action was filed beyond the one-year period from the foreclosure sale. The Court held that by requesting to stay and paying rentals, the Nerys’ possession became one by the Bank’s tolerance. A cause of action for unlawful detainer accrues from the date of demand to vacate after such tolerance ends. The Bank’s final demand was in July 1984, and the suits filed in October 1984 were thus timely.
Second, and decisively, the MTC decision had become final and executory. The Nerys failed to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period. Perfection of an appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional; failure renders the judgment final. A special civil action for certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal. The Nerys’ jurisdictional challenge, having been correctly resolved against them, could not revive their right to assail the final judgment. Consequently, the Bank was entitled to execution as a matter of right. The Court of Appeals’ injunctive relief, which interfered with this execution, constituted grave abuse of discretion. The ancillary allegations regarding irregularities in the foreclosure sale were deemed factual and unsubstantiated, not proper for an ejectment proceeding which primarily concerns possession.