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 on February 16, 1982, with the Bank as the highest bidder. After the lapse of the redemption period, 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 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 this 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 a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the execution of the MTC’s final and executory 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 upon demand to vacate, which the Bank made in July 1984. 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 a judgment final and deprives appellate courts of jurisdiction to alter it. The Nerys’ resort to certiorari before the RTC was improper as it is antithetical to appeal and cannot substitute for a lost appeal. Their collateral attack on the foreclosure’s validity was also unavailing, being a factual issue not pleaded below and not the proper subject of an ejectment case. Their remedy was a separate action for annulment of the sale. With the ejectment judgment final, execution follows as a matter of right. Therefore, the Court of Appeals’ injunctive relief, which interfered with the execution of a final judgment, constituted grave abuse of discretion.