Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, we RESOLVED to DISMISS, as we hereby OUTRIGHTLY DISMISS, the present Petition for Review.” [3] The second Resolution [4] denied petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration. The Facts The facts, as related by petitioners in their Memorandum, [5] are as follows: “1. Respondent filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila (Branch XI), a complaint against petitioners for Unlawful Detainer, docketed as Civil Case No.
WHEREFORE, we RESOLVED to DISMISS, as we hereby OUTRIGHTLY DISMISS, the present Petition for Review. [3] The second Resolution [4] denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration. The Facts The facts, as related by petitioners in their Memorandum, [5] are as follows: 1. Respondent filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila (Branch XI), a complaint against petitioners for Unlawful Detainer, docketed as Civil Case No.163168-CV and entitled, Uni-Tan Marketing Corporation, Plaintiff, versus SPS. Antonio & Aileen Lim, Defendants. 2. After the parties had filed their respective position papers, the Metropolitan Trial Court rendered a Decision dated August 6, 1999, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: 'WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants ordering- 1. The defendants and all persons claiming rights under them to immediately vacate the premises known as 1578-C Mayhaligue St., Sta. Cruz, Manila, and surrender its peaceful possession to the plaintiff; 2. The defendants to pay the plaintiff the sum of P12,500.00 per month starting May, 1998, and every month thereafter until they shall have finally and actually vacated the subject premises; 3. To pay the plaintiff the amount of P10,000.00 for and as attorneys fees; and to pay the costs of the suit. 3. On August 27, 1999 and within the reglementary period therefor, petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal manifesting that they [were] appealing the said Decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court to the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 28. The appeal was docketed [as] Civil Case No. 99-951-39 and entitled, UNI-TAN Marketing Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Sps. Anton Lim and Eileen Lim, Defendants-Appellants. 4. On February 7, 2000 the Regional Trial Court rendered a Decision reversing the Decision of the inferior court by dismissing the complaint. The dispositive portion thereof reads thus: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered reversing the judgment of the Metropolitan Trial Court and declaring the defendants as not liable for payment of any monthly rentals from May 1998 to the present; they are also not liable for attorneys fees and costs of suit; in short, the Complaint of the plaintiff against the defendants is hereby dismissed. 'SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 173166 - PURIFICACION ESTANISLAO AND RUPERTO ESTANISLAO, VS. SPOUSES NORMA GUDITO AND DAMIANO GUDITO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 173166 -
CaseG.R. No. 137650 - GUILLERMA TUMLOS, VS. SPOUSES MARIO FERNANDEZ AND LOURDES FERNANDEZ.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 137650 -
CaseG.R. No. 128058 - MARGUERITE J. LHUILLIER, VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. MEINRADO P. PAREDES, HON. MARIO V. MANAYON, SHERIFF EDILBERTO R. SUARIN AND CEBU MARIJOY REALTY CORP..R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 128058 -