G.R. No. 86134 February 8, 1993
VERONICA I. BATONGBACAL, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and EUGENIA CONTRERAS, FR. REGINO ASUNCION, AURORA ASUNCION, ANDREA ASUNCION, and BERNARDITA ASUNCION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Veronica I. Batongbacal filed a complaint for ejectment (Civil Case No. 3512) on June 30, 1983, against Antonio Asuncion, predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents, before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Valenzuela. She alleged she was the owner of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-217969 and that Antonio Asuncion, by means of strategy and stealth, occupied a portion and constructed two houses without her knowledge and consent, refusing to vacate despite demands. In his Answer, Antonio Asuncion denied entering by stealth and strategy. He claimed the land was formerly owned by petitioner’s mother, Trinidad Batongbakal. A portion was leased to Petra Marcos, who paid yearly rent. Upon Petra’s death in 1953, her daughter Eugenia Contreras (married to Antonio Asuncion) inherited the house and continued paying rent to the petitioner and her father. The rent was increased over time. Negotiations for Antonio Asuncion to buy the property in 1969, 1978, and 1981 failed due to disagreement on price. The MTC dismissed the complaint, finding Antonio Asuncion did not enter through stealth and strategy, but ordered him to pay reasonable rentals. Petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which initially dismissed the appeal, declaring the MTC had no jurisdiction because the complaint was filed more than one year after a demand to vacate made in February 1981. Upon petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, pointing to a subsequent demand letter dated May 31, 1983, the RTC reversed itself and issued an Amended Decision/Order on April 23, 1987, ordering the defendants to vacate and pay rentals and attorney’s fees. Private respondents filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which reversed the RTC’s Amended Order and reinstated the MTC’s decision dismissing the complaint. The Court of Appeals held that Antonio Asuncion was a bona fide tenant, not a possessor by stealth, and the ejectment suit could not prosper as it was not based on any ground under Batas Pambansa Blg. 25. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review the RTC’s Amended Decision/Order.
2. Whether a lessor-lessee relationship existed between the petitioner and Antonio Asuncion, making Batas Pambansa Blg. 25 applicable.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion.

RULING

1. The Court of Appeals had jurisdiction. The petitioner’s reliance on Section 45 of the Judiciary Act, as amended, and cases like Buenbrazo vs. Marave, was misplaced. Those cases involved appeals from decisions of Courts of First Instance (now RTCs) in cases originally filed with them. Here, the RTC decision was rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over a case originally filed in the MTC. Appeals from such RTC decisions are governed by the Rules of Court, specifically to the Court of Appeals. Therefore, the respondent Court properly took cognizance of the petition for review.
2. Yes, a lessor-lessee relationship existed, and Batas Pambansa Blg. 25 was applicable. Both the MTC and RTC found that Antonio Asuncion and his wife were bona fide tenants who entered legally and paid rent. The petitioner, as heir, merely stepped into the shoes of her mother and acquired all rights and obligations, including the verbal contract of lease. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the ejectment suit could not succeed because it was not anchored on any of the grounds for ejectment enumerated in Section 5 of B.P. Blg. 25. The petitioner’s claim that the defendants were merely possessors by tolerance was untenable.
3. In view of the foregoing, it was no longer necessary to discuss the third grievance. The petition was DENIED. The challenged Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals were affirmed.