G.R. No. 95818; August 2, 1991
LEOPOLDO SY, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ROLANDO JAVIER, Deputy Sheriff, Br. XIX, Metropolitan Trial Court, Manila, and SPOUSES EMETERIO M. CALUGAY and LINA SAMERA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Leopoldo Sy filed an unlawful detainer case against respondent Emeterio Calugay before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila. Private respondents filed an Answer with a Motion to Dismiss or Suspend Proceedings, citing a pending action for annulment of sale and reconveyance involving the same property before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The MeTC, applying the Rule on Summary Procedure, denied the motion and required position papers. It subsequently rendered a judgment of ejectment against Calugay. Private respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, which the MeTC denied as a prohibited pleading under the summary rules. Their notice of appeal was also denied for being filed out of time, and a writ of execution was issued.
Private respondents then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the RTC, which issued an order for a writ of preliminary injunction. However, the writ was not immediately enforced, and the MeTC’s alias writ of execution was implemented, ejecting the respondents. They then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), assailing the RTC’s inaction. The CA, in a resolution, ordered the restoration of possession to private respondents and the return of levied properties, despite the main petition challenging the RTC’s jurisdiction still being pending.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing a resolution that granted the ancillary relief of restoration of possession while the main petition questioning the RTC’s jurisdiction was still unresolved.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court annulled the CA’s resolution for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is that a court must first resolve the fundamental issue of its jurisdiction over the main action before granting ancillary reliefs that would effectively decide the case on the merits. The CA’s October 31, 1990 resolution ordered the restoration of possession and return of properties based on the enforcement of the alias writ. However, the very validity of that writ and the jurisdiction of the RTC to issue injunctive relief were the primary subjects of the still-pending petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 22521. By granting the restorative relief, the CA preemptively resolved substantive issues that should only be decided after determining whether it had jurisdiction and whether the RTC committed grave abuse. This procedural misstep rendered the resolution contrary to its own prior prudent orders and violated the principle that ancillary writs should not be issued when the main action’s viability is still in question. The Court directed the CA to first decide the jurisdictional challenge with deliberate dispatch.