G.R. No. L-74766 December 21, 1987
Domingo Vergara, Sr., petitioner, vs. Hon. Jose T. Suelto, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Davao City, Branch IV, Manolito Guinoo, Romeo Montebon and Porferio Cabase, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Domingo Vergara, Sr. filed an ejectment suit for illegal detainer against private respondents, his lessees, in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Davao City. Vergara alleged that the respondents, occupying separate sections of his commercial building on a month-to-month basis, defaulted on rental payments. He sent demand letters terminating their leases and requiring them to vacate. The respondents initially acknowledged his ownership and their status as lessees in a joint reply, even requesting a three-month extension to vacate. However, they later refused to leave, asserting a claim that the land beneath the building was part of a parcel ordered reverted to the public domain in an unrelated reversion case (Civil Case No. 16192) to which neither Vergara nor the respondents were parties.
In their answer, the respondents denied Vergara’s ownership and the validity of the lease contracts, claiming they occupied the premises “in the concept of an owner” through a landless association. Vergara filed a verified motion for summary judgment, attaching supporting documents including the written lease contracts, demand letters, receipt of partial rental payment, and the respondents’ joint reply letter. The MTC judge denied the motion, prompting Vergara to file a petition for mandamus directly with the Supreme Court to compel the grant of summary judgment.

ISSUE

(1) Whether the MTC judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for summary judgment; and (2) Whether a petition for mandamus was properly filed directly with the Supreme Court against an MTC judge.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition. On the procedural issue, while the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, the Court accepted the direct filing due to the need for a speedy resolution in an ejectment case and to avoid further delay. On the substantive issue, the Court ruled that summary judgment was proper as no genuine issue of fact existed. The respondents’ answer consisted of general denials and failed to substantively contest the material facts established by Vergara’s evidence. Their claim of ownership, based on an unrelated reversion case, was a sham defense irrelevant to the ejectment action, which solely concerned possession. Their own joint letter and partial payment of rent conclusively admitted the lessor-lessee relationship. Since the defenses raised were not genuine but contrived to delay, the MTC judge’s refusal to render summary judgment constituted a grave abuse of discretion. The Court thus issued a writ of mandamus commanding the judge to render and immediately execute a summary judgment in Vergara’s favor.