G.R. No. 194880 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, BOTH REPRESENTED BY THE PRIVATIZATION MANAGEMENT OFFICE, VS. SUNVAR REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is most respectfully prayed that after proper proceedings, judgment be rendered: 1. Ordering defendant SUNVAR REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and all persons, natural and juridical, claiming rights under it, to vacate the subject property and peacefully surrender the same, with the useful improvements therein, to the plaintiffs or to their authorized representative; and 2. Ordering defendant SUNVAR REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION to pay plaintiffs damages in the amount of SIX HUNDRED THIRTY MILLION ONE HUNDRED TWENTY THREE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED PESOS (P630,123,700.00) for the illegal and unauthorized use and occupation of the subject property from January 1, 2003 to March 31, 2009, and the amount of TEN MILLION THREE HUNDRED SIXTY-FOUR THOUSAND PESOS (P10,364,000.00) per month from April 1, 2008 until the subject property, together with its improvements, are completely vacated and peacefully surrendered to the plaintiffs or to their authorized representative. [30] Respondent Sunvar moved to dismiss the Complaint and argued that the allegations of petitioners in the Complaint did not constitute an action for unlawful detainer, since no privity of contract existed between them. [31] In the alternative, it also argued that petitioners cause of action was more properly an accion publiciana , which fell within the jurisdiction of the RTC, and not the MeTC, considering that the petitioners supposed dispossession of the subject property by respondent had already lasted for more than one year. In its Order dated 16 September 2009, the MeTC denied the Motion to Dismiss and directed respondent Sunvar to file an answer to petitioners Complaint. [32] The lower court likewise denied the Motion for Reconsideration [33] filed by respondent. [34] Respondent later on filed its Answer [35] to the Complaint. [36] Despite the filing of its Answer in the summary proceedings for ejectment, respondent Sunvar filed a Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari with the RTC of Makati City to assail the denial by the MeTC of respondents Motion to Dismiss. [37] In answer to the Rule 65 Petition of respondent, petitioners placed in issue the jurisdiction of the RTC and reasoned that the Rules on Summary Procedure expressly prohibited the filing of a petition for certiorari against the interlocutory orders of the MeTC. [38] Hence, they prayed for the outright dismissal of the certiorari Petition of respondent Sunvar. The RTC denied the motion for dismissal and ruled that extraordinary circumstances called for an exception to the general rule on summary proceedings. [39] Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, [40] which was subsequently denied by the RTC. [41] Hence, the hearing on the certiorari Petition of respondent proceeded, and the parties filed their respective Memoranda. [42] In the assailed Order dated 01 December 2010, which discussed the merits of the certiorari Petition, the RTC granted the Rule 65 Petition and directed the MeTC