View full case

DANIEL A. VILLAREAL v. METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS

FACTS:

The Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) filed a case for Unlawful Detainer against Orlando A. Villareal and others. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) dismissed the case, but MWSS appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which reversed the MeTC's decision. The RTC ordered Orlando and others to vacate the premises and surrender possession to MWSS. The RTC decision became final and executory on December 15, 2002. In May 2004, MWSS filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution with the MeTC. Orlando opposed the motion, arguing that MWSS should comply with the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992. After more than 10 years, the MeTC granted MWSS' motion for execution. Orlando filed a petition for certiorari with the RTC, but it was dismissed. Orlando then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the RTC erred in dismissing the petition due to an erroneous application of Rule 39, Section 6 of the Rules of Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the RTC erred in dismissing the petition based on erroneous application of Rule 39, Section 6 of the Rules of Court and apparent ignorance of applicable jurisprudence.

RULING:

  1. The petition is granted. The Court held that the petitioner properly resorted to a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, and not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. The Court emphasized that a Rule 45 review is generally limited to the review of legal issues, while a Rule 65 review is strictly confined to the determination of the propriety of the trial court's jurisdiction. The Court considered the issue raised by the petitioner as a question of law, thus direct resort to the Supreme Court is proper.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is generally limited to the review of legal issues, while a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is strictly confined to the determination of the trial court's jurisdiction. (Ysidoro v. Justice Leonardo De Castro, et al.)

  • Execution of a final and executory judgment may be done through either motion or an independent action, depending on the timing when the prevailing party invoked his right to enforce the court's judgment. (Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court)