Doctrine: Doctrinally-entrenched is that the right to appeal is a statutory right and the one who seeks to avail that right must comply with the statute or rules. The requirements for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period specified in the law must be strictly followed as they are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays.
Facts: Herein petitioner is the registered owner of a house and lot located at 1404 Leroy St., Paco, Manila. Respondent Milagros Rivera (Milagros) is her sister-in-law, being the wife of her deceased brother, Alejandro. Petitioner claims that she and her husband allowed respondents to stay in the disputed premises out of compassion for respondent and in consideration of her deceased brother Alejandro. However, in 2005, petitioner and her husband, finding the need to utilize the subject property and in view of their plan to distribute the same to their children, demanded that respondents vacate the premises in question. Petitioner and her husband have, likewise, obtained information that respondents are financially able to rent their own place and, in fact, have acquired several residential properties and vehicles. However, respondents refused the demand of petitioner and her husband, and even filed a case questioning petitioner's ownership of the said property contending that they are, in fact, co-owners of the subject property and that petitioner obtained title over the disputed lot through fraud, deceit and falsification. Petitioner sent a formal demand letter on May 22, 2006 to respondents asking them to vacate the disputed premises, but this remained unheeded and then another letter on September 3, 2007 asking them to leave the subject property and to pay reasonable rent from the date of receipt of the said letter until they have fully vacated the questioned premises, but to no avail. Hence, petitioner filed an unlawful detainer case with the MeTC of Manila. The court ruled in favor of petitioner.
Respondents filed an appeal with the RTC which was granted on the ground that the complaint for unlawful detainer was filed beyond the one-year reglementary period required by the Rules of Court, thus, his remedy should have been an accion publiciana which should be filed with the RTC. The RTC, nonetheless, held that the MeTC correctly held that petitioner has the right to possess the disputed lot on the basis of the MeTC's provisional finding of ownership in her favor.
After her motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC, petitioner filed with the CA a petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. CA affirmed the judgment of RTC. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was denied. CA ruled that this period is reckoned from petitioner's initial demand letter and not the latest demand letter because the latter was a mere reminder or reiteration of the original demand and, as such, does not operate to renew the one-year period within which to file the ejectment suit.
Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the RTC’s decision in holding that the one-year period within which an unlawful detainer case must be filed is reckoned from the May 22, 2006 Demand Letter and not the September 7, 2007 Demand Letter as the final one.
Held: RTC and the CA correctly ruled that the letter of September 3, 2007, which is a mere reiteration of the original demand, will not operate to renew the one-year period within which petitioner should file her unlawful detainer case because the said period will still be counted from the date of the original demand which was made on May 22, 2006. Hence, on the basis of the foregoing discussions, the instant petition should be dismissed.
Moreover, the Court could not help but agree with the observations of respondents that the present petition is, likewise, dismissible on the ground that petitioner is guilty of a procedural transgression which the Court cannot simply ignore.
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the questioned CA Decision was belatedly filed.
Doctrinally-entrenched is that the right to appeal is a statutory right and the one who seeks to avail that right must comply with the statute or rules. The requirements for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period specified in the law must be strictly followed as they are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays. Moreover, the perfection of appeal in the manner and within the period set by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional as well, hence, failure to perfect the same renders the judgment final and executory.
No comments:
Post a Comment