Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 275 views

    15 Regulus Development Inc. vs. de La Cruz PDF

    Uploaded by

    Ton Ton Cananea
    The petitioner owns an apartment building that the respondent leased two units from in 1993 and 1994. When the petitioner terminated the lease, the respondent refused to vacate, so the petitioner filed an ejectment case. The MTC and RTC both ruled in favor of the petitioner. The respondent deposited rental payments with the RTC during the appeal. The RTC then granted the petitioner's motion to withdraw these deposited funds. Subsequently, the RTC granted the petitioner's motion to levy the respondent's property due to insufficient funds from the rental deposit. The respondent appealed, arguing the RTC did not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC properly exercised its equity jurisdiction to order withdrawal of funds and levy of property, as the court of origin over

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    15 Regulus Development Inc. vs. de La Cruz PDF

    Uploaded by

    Ton Ton Cananea
    275 views2 pages
    The petitioner owns an apartment building that the respondent leased two units from in 1993 and 1994. When the petitioner terminated the lease, the respondent refused to vacate, so the petitioner filed an ejectment case. The MTC and RTC both ruled in favor of the petitioner. The respondent deposited rental payments with the RTC during the appeal. The RTC then granted the petitioner's motion to withdraw these deposited funds. Subsequently, the RTC granted the petitioner's motion to levy the respondent's property due to insufficient funds from the rental deposit. The respondent appealed, arguing the RTC did not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC properly exercised its equity jurisdiction to order withdrawal of funds and levy of property, as the court of origin over

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    15 REGULUS DEVELOPMENT INC. VS. DE LA CRUZ.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner owns an apartment building that the respondent leased two units from in 1993 and 1994. When the petitioner terminated the lease, the respondent refused to vacate, so the petitioner filed an ejectment case. The MTC and RTC both ruled in favor of the petitioner. The respondent deposited rental payments with the RTC during the appeal. The RTC then granted the petitioner's motion to withdraw these deposited funds. Subsequently, the RTC granted the petitioner's motion to levy the respondent's property due to insufficient funds from the rental deposit. The respondent appealed, arguing the RTC did not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC properly exercised its equity jurisdiction to order withdrawal of funds and levy of property, as the court of origin over

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    275 views2 pages

    15 Regulus Development Inc. vs. de La Cruz PDF

    Uploaded by

    Ton Ton Cananea
    The petitioner owns an apartment building that the respondent leased two units from in 1993 and 1994. When the petitioner terminated the lease, the respondent refused to vacate, so the petitioner filed an ejectment case. The MTC and RTC both ruled in favor of the petitioner. The respondent deposited rental payments with the RTC during the appeal. The RTC then granted the petitioner's motion to withdraw these deposited funds. Subsequently, the RTC granted the petitioner's motion to levy the respondent's property due to insufficient funds from the rental deposit. The respondent appealed, arguing the RTC did not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC properly exercised its equity jurisdiction to order withdrawal of funds and levy of property, as the court of origin over

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    REGULUS DEVELOPMENT INC. VS.

    DE LA CRUZ

    781 SCRA 607

    FACTS:

    The petitioner is the owner of an apartment (San Juan Apartments) located at San Juan Street, Pasay City.
    Antonio dela Cruz (respondent) leased two units (Unit 2002-A and Unit 2002-B) of the San Juan
    Apartments in 1993 and 1994. The petitioner sent the respondent a letter to terminate the lease of the
    two subject units. Due to the respondent’s refusal to vacate the units, the petitioner filed a complaint3
    for ejectment before MTC Pasay City. The MTC resolved the case in the petitioner’s favor and ordered the
    respondent to vacate the premises, and pay the rentals due until the respondent actually complies.

    The respondent appealed to the RTC. Pending appeal, the respondent consigned the monthly rentals to
    the RTC due to the petitioner’s refusal to receive the rentals. The RTC affirmed the decision of the MTC in
    toto and denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the respondent. The petitioner filed a motion (to
    withdraw funds deposited by the defendant-appellant as lessee) praying for the withdrawal of the rentals
    consigned by the respondent with the RTC.

    In an order dated July 25, 2003, the RTC granted the petitioner’s motion. As a result thereof, RTC issued a
    writ of execution. Respondent filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before CA but the CA affirmed
    RTC’s orders.

    SC affirmed said resolution.

    Petitioner then returned to RTC for an issuance of a writ of execution against the supersedeas bond
    representing rentals for the leased property. RTC granted the motion. By virtue of insufficiency thereof,
    the petition filed for a motion to levy the respondent’s property which was also granted IN AN ORDER
    DATED JUNE 30, 2008. CA affirmed RTC’s decision.

    Hence this petition.

    ISSUE:

    The petitioner poses the core issue of whether the RTC had jurisdiction to levy on the respondent’s real
    property.

    RULING: The appellate jurisdiction of courts is conferred by law. The appellate court acquires jurisdiction
    over the subject matter and parties when an appeal is perfected.

    On the other hand, equity jurisdiction aims to provide complete justice in cases where a court of law is
    unable to adapt its judgments to the special circumstances of a case because of a resulting legal
    inflexibility when the law is applied to a given situation. The purpose of the exercise of equity jurisdiction,
    among others, is to prevent unjust enrichment and to ensure restitution.

    The RTC orders which allowed the withdrawal of the deposited funds for the use and occupation of the
    subject units were issued pursuant to the RTC’s equity jurisdiction, as the CA held in the petition docketed
    as CA-G.R. SP No. 81277.

    The RTC’s equity jurisdiction is separate and distinct from its appellate jurisdiction on the ejectment case.
    The RTC could not have issued its orders in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction since there was nothing
    more to execute on the dismissed ejectment case. As the RTC orders explained, the dismissal of the
    ejectment case effectively and completely blotted out and cancelled the complaint. Hence, the RTC orders
    were clearly issued in the exercise of the RTC’s equity jurisdiction, not on the basis of its appellate
    jurisdiction.

    The RTC, as the court of origin, has jurisdiction to order the levy of the respondent's real property.

    Execution shall be applied for in the court of origin, in accordance with Section 1,45 Rule 39 of the Rules
    of Court.

    The court of origin with respect to the assailed RTC orders is the court which issued these orders. The RTC
    is the court with jurisdiction to order the execution of the issued RTC orders.

    Hence, the petitioner correctly moved for the issuance of the writ of execution and levy of the
    respondent's real property before the RTC as the court of origin.

    You might also like