3Repnblic of tue lluihppine~

~upreme (ourt
:lflllanila

THIRD DIVISION

CARIDAD PACHECO, G.R. No. 268216

Petitioner,
Present:

CAGUIOA,
Chairperson,
-versus- INTING,
GAERLAN,
DIMAAMPAO, and
SINGH, JJ.

JIMMY F. REYES, Promulgated:

Respondent. February 26, 2024
. x------------------------------------------------ ffii-\-i;>cl\~--------------------------x

DECISION

GAERLAN, J.:

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 filed by Caridad Pacheco

(petitioner) assailing the July 26, 2022 Resolution 2 and the May 8, 2023
Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. SP No. 173904.

The facts of the case as culled from the rollo provides:

Jimmy F. Reyes (respondent) is the lawful possessor of the lot located

at No. 39 Visayas Street, Group 3, Area B, Payatas, Quezon City having
acquired the same from Benedicto Roquid, by virtue of a Subrogation/
Transfer of Rights and Improvement dated February 5, 2004. 4

1
Rollo, pp. 3-- 15 .
2 Id. at 76 ; rendered by Associate Justices Marlene 8. Gonzales-S ison, Gabrie l T. Robeniol, and Michael
P. Ong of the Seventh Division of the Co1111 of Appeals, Manila.
3
Id at 24- 27; penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol and concurred in by Associate Justices
Marlene 8 . Gonza les-S ison and Michael P. Ong.
4
Id. at 28.
 Decision 2 G.R. No. 268216

Petitioner and her late husband, Ramon Pacheco, Sr., (collectively,

spouses Pacheco), as lessees, entered into a contract of lease with respondent
at a monthly rental of PHP 6,000.00 to be paid every first day of the month
starting on October 1, 2012. Starting April 1, 2017 and onwards, spouses
Pacheco failed to pay the monthly rentals, and despite several demands to
pay and vacate, no payment was made. Despite receipt of the demand letter
dated August 5, 2017 5 and tender of another demand letter dated February
11, 2019, spouses Pacheco continued to remain in possession of the subject
premises. 6

Subsequently, respondent filed a complaint against spouses Pacheco

before the Lupon ng Tagapamayapa of Barangay Payatas, Quezon City but
they allegedly ignored said complaint and refused to amicably settle the
dispute. Thus, a Certificate to File Action dated July 10, 2017 was issued by
the Office of Lupong Tagapamayapa ofBarangay Payatas, Quezon City. 7

On February 13, 2019, respondent, through the University of the

Philippines-Office of the Legal Aid's (UP-OLA) Law Intern Juan Paolo M.
Artiaga (Artiaga), personally tendered to spouses Pacheco the Demand
Letter dated February 11, 2019, demanding them to: (a) pay the respondent
the amount of PHP 66,000.00, representing spouses Pacheco's overdue and
unpaid rentals; (b) vacate the lot and its improvements, which spouses
Pacheco are using as a junk shop. However, spouses Pacheco allegedly
refused to receive and sign the aforementioned demand letter despite
Artiaga's explanation to them. To prove that Artiaga personally tendered
the said demand letter to spouses Pacheco, he executed an Affidavit of
Service dated February 22, 2019. Despite such demand to pay and vacate,
spouses Pacheco remained in possession of the subject property. 8

On April 13, 2019, the respondent, through the assistance of UP-OLA,

filed a complaint for Unlawful Detainer and Damages. Srunmons upon
spouses Pacheco was successfully served to them on April 22, 2019 per the
Return of Service of the Court Bailiff. 9

On May 6, 2019, spouses Pacheco, through Atty. Romeo N.

Bartolome (Atty. Bartolome), filed their Answer with Compulsory Counter
Claim to the respondent. They denied the allegation of the respondent
claiming that the respondent has no cause of action against them because
they are the owners of the subject property which they acquired from

5
Id.
6 Id. at 29.
7
Id. at 28.
8
Id. at 29.
' Id.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 268216

Acopiado estate, the registered owner of the subject property. 10 They added
that respondent is claiming a property different from the one they are
occupying. They argued that the respondent has no right to collect any
rentals and to claim any damages from them. Spouses Pacheco submitted a
Deed of Assignment of Real Property to prove their ownership over the
subject property. They further avened that they had not received the alleged
demand letter from the respondent. And if ever they refused to receive the
alleged letter, they asse1ied that they have all the reasons to do so as the
alleged owners of the subject property. 11

Spouses Pacheco then prayed that the case be dismissed on the ground
of prescription since they have been in open and continuous possession of
the subject property for more than 30 years and that the one-year period
from the last demand to vacate on August 5, 2017 within which to file the
instant action has already lapsed. 12

The Metropolitan Trial Court Ruling

In the Decisiori 13 dated September 21, 2020, the Metropolitan Trial

Court (MeTC) found that respondent substantially proved by preponderance
of evidence his claim to eject spouses Pacheco from the subject property. 14
All the elements of an action for uruawful detainer were duly proven by the
respondent. It was established as it is judicially admitted by spouses Pacheco
that the parties entered into a lease contract agreement involving the subject
property as evinced by the Contract of Lease dated September 20, 2012
signed by the respondent and Ramon Pacheco, Sr. 15 The court also noted
spouses Pacheco's judicial admission that they stop the payment of rental to
the respondent after they found out that the respondent is not the real owner
of the subject lot and the improvement found thereon. 16 The admissions
confirm that spouses Pacheco are indeed lessees of the subject property and
that they agreed to the terms and conditions of the Contract of Lease. Thus,
they are bound to sunender the possession of the said property to respondent
upon expiration of the lease contract or upon default of their obligation to
pay the rentals and upon demand to pay and vacate by the respondent. 17

The Me TC added that under Section 2(b ), Rule 131 of the Rules of
Court, the tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time
of the commencement of the relationship of landlord and tenant between

'°
11

i2
Jd.
Jd. at 51.
Id.
L
13 Id. at 28-45; penned by Presiding Judge Dini P. Maximo-Uy.
14 Id. at 37.
15 Id at 38.
16 Jd.at41.
17
Id. at 39.
 Decision 4 G.R. No. 268216

them. Thus, when the parties executed the Contract of Lease, spouses
Pacheco, as lessees, are estopped from contesting and denying the title,
better right of possession, and ownership of the respondent on the subject
property upon the start of the validity of the lease contract. 18

The MeTC then decreed:

WHEREFORE. premises considered, judgment is, hereby,

rendered in favor of the [respondent] Jimmy F. Reyes and against the
[petitioners] Spouses Ramon B. Pacheco, Sr. and Caridad Pacheco. The
instant Complaint for Unlawful Detainer and Damages, is hereby
GRANTED.

Accordingly, [petitioners] Spouses Ramon B. Pacheco and Caridad

Pacheco are hereby ORDERED:

I. To vacate the premises of the lot they are presently occupying

located at No. 39 Visayas Street, Group 3, Area B, Payatas,
Quezon City, and to surrender possession thereof to
[respondent] Jimmy F. Reyes;

2. To pay the accmed w1paid rentals and arrearages in the amount

of Six Thousand Pesos (Php 6,0000) per month reckoned from
February 20 I 9 or the last final demand to vacate until such
time that the [petitioners], actually vacated and peacefully
surrendered possession of the subject property in favor of the
plaintiff.

3. To pay the sum of Twenty Thousand Pesos (Php 20,0000) as

and by way of reasonable attorney's fees; and

4. To pay the costs of suit.

SO ORDERED. 19 (Emphases in the original)

The petitioner elevated the case to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) via
a Notice of Appeal. 20

The RTC Ruling

The RTC, in its Decision 21 dated July 9, 2021, affirmed the findings of
the Me TC. The decretal portion of said Decision reads:

18
Id. at 40.
19 Id. at 44.
20 Id. at 46-47.
21 Jd. at 50-54; penned by Presiding Judge Kathleen Rosario D. De la Cruz-Espinosa.

j
..

Decision 5 G.R. No. 268216

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the assailed

Decision of the court a quo dated September 21, 2020, the same is hereby
AFFIRMED in.toto.

SO ORDERED. 22 (Emphasis in the original)

The RTC ruled that as having entered into a Contract of Lease,

spouses Pacheco are estopped from questioning the title of the respondent as
the landlord, as provided for under Section 2(b) of Rule 131 of the 2019
Rules of Court. The documentary and testimonial evidence presented by the
respondent sufficiently established that spouses Pacheco's right of
possession over the subject property was by virtue of a contract voluntarily
entered and executed by the parties involved. Therefore, spouses Pacheco's
possession over the property became illegal upon the default in the payment
of rentals and receipt of the demand to pay and vacate the same. Spouses
Pacheco failed to pay the agreed monthly rentals for the use of the subject
property starting April 1, 2017. Several demand letters to pay and vacate
were sent to spouses Pacheco, the most recent was that dated February 11,
2019. While spouses Pacheco denied receipt of the said letter, said denial
cannot outweigh the positive and categorical testimony as well as the
affidavit of service executed by respondent's counsel. Spouses Pacheco's
continued occupation and possession of the subject property became illegal
and unlawful which gave rise to an action for unlawful detainer. 23

Petitioner elevated the case before the CA via a Petition for

Certiorari.

The Ruling of the CA

In a Resolution24 dated July 26, 2022, the CA dismissed petition

outright. Relevant portion of the Resolution provides:

The Court NOTES that the Petition for Certiorari assails a

Decision of the RTC in the exercise of the latter's appellate jurisdiction.
, Thus, the proper remedy should be an appeal under Rule 42 of the Rules
of Court. Given these, the availability of appeal renders the present resort
to certiorari improper even if the petitioner ascribes grave abuse of
discretion (G.R. No. 183869, 03 August 2015). Further, even [i]fthe Court
were to treat the present action as an appeal, the same should still be
dismissed; the RTC's Decision, having been received by petitioner's
counsel on 28 April 2022, had already become final.

22 Id. at 54.
23 Id. at 53-54.
24 Id. at 76.

j
 . ,

Decision 6 G.R. No. 268216

In addition, the Petition lacks a Verification for the Petition and a

Certification against Forum Shopping. The Court OBSERVES that the
Verification attached to the Petition refers to a Motion and is
unaccompanied by the Certificate previously mentioned. The Court
NOTES that the petitioner also failed to attach certain relevant documents,
i.e., the pleadings filed before the M[etro ]TC.

Consequently, for the above reasons, the Court DISMISSES the

Petition OUTRIGHT (Sec. 3 and 5, Rule 46). 25

The subsequently filed Motion for Reconsideration26 was also denied

in the Resolution27 dated May 8, 2023.

Undeterred, the petitioner brought the case before this Court via a
Petition for Review on Certiorari2 8 under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of
Procedure.

Issue

The core issue for resolution is whether or not the CA committed

reversible error in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari filed by the
petitioner. 29

The Ruling of the Court

The Court finds no reversible error when the CA dismissed the

petition outright for being the wrong remedy and because the petition suffers
from several procedural infirmities.

Petitioner averred that her failure to attach a verification and a

certificate against forum shopping in the petition she filed with the CA was
merely due to inadvertence. She pleaded for liberal application of the rules
claiming that her subsequent submissions of the verification and a
certification against forum shopping, including all required documents,
constituted substantial compliance with the rules. 30

The Court is not convinced.

25
Id.
26 Id. at 78-86.
27 Id, at 24-27.
28 Id. at 3-23,
29
Id. at IL
30 Id. at 13,
 Decision 7 G.R. No. 268216

In Quitalig v. Quitalig, 31 the Court reiterated the following guidelines

as well as exceptions with respect to noncompliance with the requirements
on, or submission of a defective, verification and certification against forum
shopping, viz.:

1) A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the

requirement on or submission of defective verification, and non-
compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective
certification against forum shopping.

2) As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does

not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court may
order its submission or correction or act on the pleading if the
attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule
may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served
thereby.

3) Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has

ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the
complaint or petition signs the verification, and when matters alleged
in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct.

4) As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith

or a defect therein, unlike in verification, is generally not curable by its
subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to
relax the Rule on the ground of "substantial compliance" or presence
of "special circumstances or compelling reasons."

5) The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the

plaintiffs or petitioners in a case; otherwise, those who did not sign
will be dropped as parties to the case. Under reasonable or justifiable
circumstances, however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a
common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the
signature of only one of them in the certification against forum
shopping substantially complies with the Rule.

6) Finally, the certification against forum shopping must be executed by

the party-pleader, not by his counsel. If, however, for reasonable or
justifiable reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he must execute
a Special Power of Attorney designating his counsel of record to sign
on his behalf. 32 (Underlining and italics in the original, citation
omitted)

Applying these guidelines here, the dismissal of the CA petition was

warranted. A review of the alleged subsequent correction and submission by
the petitioner shows that the smne was still inadequate. As observed by the
CA, the verification and a certificate against forum shopping lack attestation.
In addition, petitioner merely submitted the first page of her Position Paper

31 G.R. No. 207958, August 4, 2021 [Per J. Gaerlan, Second Division].

32 Id.

J
 Decision 8 G.R. No. 268216

and nothing more. 33 Evidently, the averred subsequent submission made by

petitioner is far from substantial.

It is stressed that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a

component of due process. It is a mere statutory privilege, and may be
exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the law and rules. 34

It has been repeatedly emphasized that the rules of procedure should

be treated with utmost respect and due regard since they are designed to
facilitate the adjudication of cases to remedy the worsening problem of delay
in the resolution of rival claims and in the administration of justice. 35
Procedural rules must be faithfully complied with and should not be
discarded with the mere expediency of claiming substantial merit. 36 The
relaxation or suspension of procedural rules or the exemption of a case from
their operation is warranted only by compelling reasons or when the purpose
of justice requires it. 37 No compelling or justifiable reason was offered by
the petitioner in this case.

Petitioner also argues that Rule 42 of the Rules of Court is no longer a

remedy available because the judgment of the RTC on appeal has already
become final, executory, and unappealable under the Rules on Expedited
Procedures in the First Level Court or A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC. 38

The argument fails to persuade.

When the RTC issued its July 9, 2021 Decision affirming the findings
and conclusions of the MeTC in its September 21, 2020 Decision, it did so
in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. It is elementary that all appeals
from judgments rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction, regardless of whether the appellant raises questions of fact,
questions of law, or mixed questions of fact and law, shall be brought to the
CA by filing a petition for review under Rule 42. 39 It is evident that the
petitioner availed of the wrong mode or remedy when they sought recourse
by way of a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 1s an original action,

independent from the principal action, and not a part or a continuation of the

33 Rollo, pp. 26--27.

34 Brual v. Contreras, G.R. No. 20545!, March 7, 2022 [Per J. Hernando, Second Division].
35 Asia United Bank v. Goodland Co., Inc., 6S0 Phil. 174, 184 (20 !O) (Per J. Nachura, Second Division].
36 Bolos v. Bolos, 648 Phil. 630,638 (20!0) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
37 Asia United Bank v. Goodland Co .. Inc., 650 Phil. ! 74, l 83 (2010) [Per J. Nachura, Second Division].
38
Rollo, p. 12.
39 Rodis v. Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. 2150 !O, July 29, 2020.
 Decision 9 G.R. No. 268216

trial which resulted in the rendition of the judgment complained of. It is

intended for the correction of errors of jurisdiction only or grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Its principal office is
only to keep the inferior court within the parameters of its jurisdiction or to
prevent it from committing such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction.40

The remedy of certiorari may only be resorted to in the absence of

appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law. Thus, as a rule, certiorari cannot be made as a substitute for a lost
appeal. 41

Clearly, an appeal by way of a petition for review under Rule 42 was

available to petitioner. However, they opted to avail of a Petition for
Certiorari under Rule 65 invoking the Rules on Expedited Procedures in the
First Level Court or A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC which, as correctly ruled by the
CA, is not applicable. The instant case was filed with the Me TC of Quezon
1
City on April 3, 2019 and was decided by the said court on September 21,
2020. On appeal, the RTC affirmed the MeTC ruling in a Decision dated
July 9, 2021 and Order dated March 2, 2022.

Note that A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC took effect on April 11, 2022, and has
a prospective application, viz.:

RULEV
EFFECTIVITY

The Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts shall

take effect on 11 April 2022 and shall prospectively apply only to cases
filed from the said date of effectivity. Those pending cases covered by
these Rules, which are currently before the second and first level courts,
shall remain with and be decided by those same courts based on the rules
applicable at the time those cases were filed. (Emphasis supplied)

The categorical language of Rule V of A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC cannot be

any clearer leaving no room for interpretation.

Nevertheless, even if the Court deems it proper to relax the rules and
treat the petition for certiorari as a petition for review under Rule 42, it
remains that the petition was filed out of time.

40 Go-Yu v. Yu, 851 Phil. 213, 221-222 (2019) [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].
41 Cornworld Breeding Systems Corp. v. Court qf Appeals, G.R. No. 204075, August i 7, 2022 [Per I.
Hernando, First Division].
Decision GR. No. 268216

The RTC Decision dated July 9, 2021 and the Order dated March 2,
2022 being assailed before the CA was received by the petitioner's counsel
on April 28, 2022. 42 Admittedly, petitioner's counsel only filed with the CA
the Petition for Certiorari on the 50 th day from their receipt of the RTC
Order dated March 2, 2022 which denied their motion for reconsideration.
This is way beyond the 15-day reglementary period for filing a Rule 42
petition.

Undoubtedly, the assailed Decision and Order of the RTC already

became final by operation of law.

Judgments or orders become final and executory by operation of law

and not by judicial declaration. The finality of a judgment becomes a fact
upon the lapse of the reglementary period of appeal if no appeal is perfected
or no motion for reconsideration or new trial is filed. 43 The court need not
even pronounce the finality of the order as the same becomes final by
operation of law. 44

Indeed, a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and

unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the
modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and
whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the Highest Court of
the land. Any act which violates this principle must immediately be struck
down. 45

ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is

DENIED. The July 26, 2022 and the May 8, 2023 Resolutions of the Court
of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 173904 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

====-~~
SAMUELV.~N
Associate Justice

42
Rollo, p. 9. . ...
43 Heirs ofReyes,,, Director oflands, 873 Phil. 468, 477--478 (2020) [Per J. Reyes,_ Jr., FJrst D1v1s10n].
44 Mendozav. Republic, G.R. No. 241267, November 13, 2019 [Notice, SecondD1VIs10n].
45 Star Special Corporate Security Management, Inc. v. Commission on Audit, 880 Phil. 822, 834 (2020)
[Per J. Leonen, En Banc].
Decision 11 G.R. No. 268216

WE CONCUR:

HEN 'ARB.DIMA
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.
Decision 12 G.R. No. 268216

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

AL . . ESMUNDO
- ief Justice