The Court of Appeals has sustained its earlier decision last January allowing the government to regain possession of over 2.9 hectare “Mile Long” properties in Makati City from Sunvar Realty Development Corp.
In its decision, the CA’s Former Fifth Division through Associate Justice Jose Reyes, Jr. junked the motion for partial reconsideration filed by Sunvar seeking the reversal of its January 26, 2017 decision, which dismissed its petition for injunction filed before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 59, for lack of jurisdiction.
“In this case, we adhere to our earlier finding that the RTC of Makati City, Branch 59 has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the petition for injunction to enjoin the implementation and execution of the decision of the MeTC [Metropolitan Trial Court] of Makati City, Branch 61,” the appellate court said.
On June 10, 2015, Makati City MeTC, Brach 61, granted the complaint for ejectment filed by the government against Sunvar and ordered the latter to vacate the 2.9-hectare property located between De La Rosa and Arnaiz Streets and parallel to Amorsolo Street in Legazpi Village.
The MeTC also directed Sunvar to pay the government back rentals as of May 2015 amounting to P478.2 million with monthly rental of P3.2 million beginning June 2015 until it vacates the premises.
However, Sunvar filed a petition for injunction before the Makati RTC Branch 59 which has immediate jurisdiction over the case despite the government’s opposition.
The government elevated the issue before the CA after the Makati RTC denied its petition seeking the dismissal of its petition for injunction filed by Sunvar.
The government insisted that the Makati RTC should have dismissed Sunvar’s petition on the ground of forum shopping. It can be recalled that aside from the preliminary injunction petition filed before the Makati RTC Branch 59 (Civil Case No. 15-759), Sunvar also filed an appeal with Makati RTC Branch 141 of the MeTC decision docketed as Civil Case No. 15-958.
After a motion to consolidate was granted, Makati RTC Branch 59 took cognizance of both cases.
Subsequently, Makati Branch 59 issued a joint decision on May 7, 2016 dismissing the petition for injunction and disposed Civil Case 15-958 by ruling to set aside the June 10, 2015 decision and to refer the said case to arbitration pursuant to the agreement of the parties as embodied in their contract.
In upholding its January 2017 decision, the CA insisted that Makati RTC Branch 59 has no jurisdiction over the two cases. It noted that Sunvar violated the Rules on Summary Procedure which provides for the remedy of appealto the appropriate RTC.
“We reiterate our stand that consolidation of the two cases cannot be allowed for the reason that the RTC Branch 59 has no jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 15-759,” the CA ruled.
“With the consolidation being declared improper, the RTC of Makati City, Branch 59 cannot exercise jurisdiction over Civil Case Nos. 15-759 and 15-958 and consequently resulting joint decision which it issued is void and carries no legal effect,” the appellate court said.
It held that Makati RTC, Branch 141, where the appeal of the main case was originally filed before it was consolidated with the case before Makati RTC Branch 59 should be the one to hear and decide the issue on its merits.
“Civil case no. 15-958, which we ruled to subsit remains with the RTC of Makati City, Branch 141 and as such, remand the case for the continuation of the proceedings of the appeal is just proper,” the appellate court said.
“Circuitous as it may appear, but we are dealing with the issue of jurisdiction. Then again, jurisdiction is not a mere matter of form or technicality. Jurisdiction exists as a matter of law, and may not be conferred by consent of the parties or by estoppels,” it added.
In its complaint for ejectment, the government and the National Power Corporation accused Sunvar of refusing to vacate the subject property despite the lapse of the ultimatum given to the latter.
The said property is at present being leased out by Sunvar to the operators of Premier Cinema, Mile Long Arcade, Makati Creekside Building, The Gallery Building, and Sunvar Plaza.
Other portions of the subject property, however, remain as open spaces, profitably utilized as parking area for customers and guests.
Based on the complaint, the government and Napocor co-owned the subject property on an 80-20 percent sharing.
On December 26, 1977, plaintiffs leased the property to the Technology Resource Center Foundation Inc. (TRCFI) for a period of 25 years, beginning January 1, 1978 until December 31, 2002, renewable for another 25 years upon mutual agreement of the parties.
Over the years TRFCI subsequently leased a portion of the property located between De la Rosa St. and Arnaiz Ave (formerly Pasay Road) to Sunvar Realty under a sublease agreement.
In all the agreements between TRFCI and Sunvar the latter agreed to return or surrender the subleased land, without any delay whatsoever upon the termination or expiration of the sublease contract or any renewal or extension when the agreements expired on December 31, 2002.
During the period of its sublease, Sunvar put up commercial buildings and establishments and introduced several improvements on the property.
Following a reorganization of the government, TRCFI was dissolved and was replaced by the Philippine Development Alternatives Foundation (PDAF), which assumed all the functions of TRCFI.
On June 3, 2002, Napocor notified PDAF of its decision not to renew the contract of lease. For its part, the government informed PDAF through a memorandum issued on June 13, 2002 of its decision not to renew the lease contract on the ground that both of them had earlier entered into an agreement to shorten PDAF’s corporate life and cause the transfer of its assets to the government for the purpose of selling the same to raise much-needed funds.
Subsequently, the government and Napocor transferred the subject property to PMO for disposition.
On February 22, 2008, the government advised Sunvar to completely vacate the subject property within30 days or it will take legal action against it before the court. Sunvar, however, refused to vacate, and continued to remain on the subject property.
On February 3, 2009, respondent Sunvar received a final notice to vacate within 15 days but when the period arrived it again refused to vacate the property and continue to occupy it. On July 23, 2009, petitioners filed the complaint for unlawful detainer with the Makati MeTC praying that Sunvar be ordered to vacate the subject property and to pay damages for the illegal use and lost income owing to them.