SECOND DIVISION

January 25, 2016

G.R. No. 198172

REGULUS DEVELOPMENT, INC., Petitioner,

vs.
ANTONIO DELA CRUZ, Respondent.

DECISION

BRION, J.:

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioner Regulus

Development, Inc. (petitioner) to challenge the November 23, 2010 Decision 1 and
August 10, 2011 resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 105290.
CA Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. penned the rulings, concurred in by
Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Fiorito S. Macalino.

ANTECEDENT FACTS

The petitioner is the owner of an apartment (San Juan Apartments) located at San

Juan Street, Pasay City. Antonio dela Cruz (respondent) leased two units (Unit 2002-
A and Unit 2002-B) of the San Juan Apartments in 1993 and 1994. The contract of
lease for each of the two units similarly provides a lease period of one (1) month,
subject to automatic renewals, unless terminated by the petitioner upon written
notice.

The petitioner sent the respondent a letter to terminate the lease of the two subject
units. Due to the respondent’s refusal to vacate the units, the petitioner filed a
complaint3 for ejectment before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Pasay City,
Manila, on May 1, 2001.

The MTC resolved the case in the petitioner’s favor and ordered the respondent
to vacate the premises, and pay the rentals due until the respondent actually
complies.4

The respondent appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Pending appeal, the
respondent consigned the monthly rentals to the RTC due to the petitioner’s refusal
to receive the rentals.

The RTC affirmed5 the decision of the MTC in toto and denied the motion for
reconsideration filed by the respondent.
CA-G.R. SP No. 69504: Dismissal of Ejectment Case

In a Petition for Review filed by the respondent, the CA reversed the lower courts’
decisions and dismissed the ejectment case.6 On March 19, 2003, the dismissal
of the case became final and executory.7

Orders dated July 25, 2003 and November 28, 2003 for payment of rentals due
under lease contracts

The petitioner filed a motion (to withdraw funds deposited by the defendant-appellant
as lessee)8 praying for the withdrawal of the rentals consigned by the respondent
with the RTC.

In an order dated July 25, 2003,9 the RTC granted the petitioner’s motion. The RTC
explained that the effect of the complaint’s dismissal would mean that there was no
complaint filed at all. The petitioner, however, is entitled to the amount of rentals for
the use and occupation of the subject units, as provided in the executed contracts of
lease and on the basis of justice and equity.

The court denied the respondent’s motion for reconsideration 10 in an order dated
November 28, 2003.11

On the petitioner’s motion, the RTC issued a writ of execution on December 18,
2003, to cause the enforcement of its order dated July 25, 2003.12

CA-G.R. SP No. 81277: Affirmed RTC Orders

The respondent filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA to assail

the RTC Orders dated July 25, 2003 and November 28, 2003 (RTC orders), which
granted the petitioner’s motion to withdraw funds.

The CA dismissed13 the petition and held that the assailed RTC Orders were issued
pursuant to its equity jurisdiction, in accordance with Section 5, Rule 39, 14 and
Rules 515 and 616 of Rule 135 of the Rules of Court. The respondent’s motion for
reconsideration was similarly denied.

G.R. SP No. 171429: Affirmed CA Ruling on RTC Orders

The respondent filed a petition for review on certiorari before this Court to assail the
decision of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 81277. In a resolution dated June 7,
2006,17 we denied the petition for insufficiency in form and for failure to show any
reversible error committed by the CA.

Our resolution became final and executory and an entry of judgment18 was issued.

Execution of RTC Orders

The petitioner returned to the RTC and moved for the issuance of a writ of execution
to allow it to proceed against the supersedeas bond the respondent posted,
representing rentals for the leased properties from May 2001 to October 2001, and to
withdraw the lease payments deposited by respondent from November 2001 until
August 2003.19 The RTC granted the motion.20
The RTC issued an Alias Writ of Execution 21 dated April 26, 2007, allowing the
withdrawal of the rental deposits and the value of the supersedeas bond.

The petitioner claimed that the withdrawn deposits, supersedeas bond, and

payments directly made by the respondent to the petitioner, were insufficient to cover
rentals due for the period of May 2001 to May 2004. Hence, the petitioner filed a
manifestation and motion22 dated October 23, 2007, praying that the RTC levy upon
the respondent’s property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 136829
to satisfy the judgment credit.

The RTC granted the petitioner’s motion in an order dated June 30, 2008.23 The
respondent filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the RTC in
an order dated August 26, 2008.24

CA-G.R. SP No. 105290: Assailed the levy of the respondent’s property

On October 3, 2008, the respondent filed with the CA a Petition for Certiorari 25 with
application for issuance of a temporary restraining order. The petition sought to nullify
and set aside the orders of the RTC directing the levy of the respondent’s real
property. The CA dismissed the petition. Thereafter, the respondent filed a motion for
reconsideration26 dated November 3, 2008.

Pursuant to the order dated June 30, 2008, a public auction for the respondent’s
property covered by TCT No. 136829 was held on November 4, 2008, 27 where the
petitioner was declared highest bidder. Subsequently, the Certificate of Sale 28 in
favor of the petitioner was registered.

Meanwhile, on January 7, 2010, the respondent redeemed the property with the RTC
Clerk of Court, paying the equivalent of the petitioner’s bid price with legal interest.
The petitioner filed a motion to release funds29 for the release of the redemption price
paid. The RTC granted30 the motion.

On February 12, 2010, the respondent filed a manifestation and motion 31 before the
CA to withdraw the petition for the reason that the redemption of the property and
release of the price paid rendered the petition moot and academic.

Thereafter, the petitioner received the CA decision dated November 23, 2010, which
reversed and set aside the orders of the RTC directing the levy of the respondent’s
property. The CA held that while the approval of the petitioner’s motion to withdraw
the consigned rentals and the posted supersedeas bond was within the RTC’s
jurisdiction, the RTC had no jurisdiction to levy on the respondent’s real property.

The CA explained that the approval of the levy on the respondent’s real property
could not be considered as a case pending appeal, because the decision of the MTC
had already become final and executory. As such, the matter of execution of the
judgment lies with the MTC where the complaint for ejectment was originally filed and
presented.

The CA ordered the RTC to remand the case to the MTC for execution. The
petitioner filed its motion for reconsideration which was denied32 by the CA.

THE PETITION
The petitioner filed the present petition for review on certiorari to challenge the CA
ruling in CA-G.R. SP No. 105290 which held that the RTC had no jurisdiction to levy
on the respondent’s real property.

The petitioner argues: first, that the RTC’s release of the consigned rentals and levy
were ordered in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction; second, that the respondent’s
petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 105290 was already moot and academic with the conduct
of the auction sale and redemption of the respondent’s real property; third, that the
petition in CAG. R. SP No. 105290 should have been dismissed outright for lack of
signature under oath on the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping.

The respondent duly filed its comment33 and refuted the petitioner’s arguments. On
the first argument, respondent merely reiterated the CA’s conclusion that the RTC
had no jurisdiction to order the levy on respondent’s real property as it no longer falls
under the allowed execution pending appeal. On the second argument, the
respondent contended that the levy on execution and sale at public auction were null
and void, hence the CA decision is not moot and academic. On the third argument,
the respondent simply argued that it was too late to raise the alleged formal defect as
an issue.

THE ISSUE

The petitioner poses the core issue of whether the RTC had jurisdiction to levy on the
respondent’s real property.

OUR RULING

We grant the petition.

Procedural issue: Lack of notarial seal on the Verification and Certification

against Forum Shopping is not fatal to the petition.

The petitioner alleged that the assailed CA petition should have been dismissed
since the notary public failed to affix his seal on the attached Verification and
Certification against Forum Shopping.

We cannot uphold the petitioner’s argument.

The lack of notarial seal in the notarial certificate34 is a defect in a document that is
required to be executed under oath.

Nevertheless, a defect in the verification does not necessarily render the pleading
fatally defective. The court may order its submission or correction, or act on the
pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule
may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served.35

Noncompliance or a defect in a certification against forum shopping, unlike in the

case of a verification, is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or
correction, unless the covering Rule is relaxed on the ground of "substantial
compliance" or based on the presence of "special circumstances or compelling
reasons."36 Although the submission of a certificate against forum shopping is
deemed obligatory, it is not however jurisdictional.37
In the present case, the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping were
in fact submitted. An examination of these documents shows that the notary public’s
signature and stamp were duly affixed. Except for the notarial seal, all the
requirements for the verification and certification documents were complied with.

The rule is that courts should not be unduly strict on procedural lapses that do not
really impair the proper administration of justice. The higher objective of procedural
rules is to ensure that the substantive rights of the parties are protected. Litigations
should, as much as possible, be decided on the merits and not on technicalities.
Every party-litigant must be afforded ample opportunity for the proper and just
determination of his case, free from the unacceptable plea of technicalities.38

The CA correctly refused to dismiss and instead gave due course to the petition as it
substantially complied with the requirements on the Verification and Certification
against Forum Shopping.

An issue on jurisdiction prevents the petition from becoming "moot and

academic."

The petitioner claims that the assailed CA petition should have been dismissed
because the subsequent redemption of the property by the respondent and the
release of the price paid to the petitioner rendered the case moot and academic.

A case or issue is considered moot and academic when it ceases to present a

justiciable controversy because of supervening events, rendering the adjudication of
the case or the resolution of the issue without any practical use or value. 39 Courts
generally decline jurisdiction over such case or dismiss it on the ground of mootness
except when, among others, the case is capable of repetition yet evades judicial
review.40

The CA found that there is an issue on whether the RTC had jurisdiction to issue the
orders directing the levy of the respondent’s property. The issue on jurisdiction is a
justiciable controversy that prevented the assailed CA petition from becoming moot
and academic.

It is well-settled in jurisprudence that jurisdiction is vested by law and cannot be

conferred or waived by the parties. "Even on appeal and even if the reviewing parties
did not raise the issue of jurisdiction, the reviewing court is not precluded from ruling
that the lower court had no jurisdiction over the case."41

Even assuming that the case has been rendered moot due to the respondent’s
redemption of the property, the CA may still entertain the jurisdictional issue since it
poses a situation capable of repetition yet evading judicial review.

Under this perspective, the CA correctly exercised its jurisdiction over the petition.

Equity jurisdiction versus appellate jurisdiction of the RTC

The appellate jurisdiction of courts is conferred by law. The appellate court acquires
jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties when an appeal is perfected.42

On the other hand, equity jurisdiction aims to provide complete justice in cases where
a court of law is unable to adapt its judgments to the special circumstances of a case
because of a resulting legal inflexibility when the law is applied to a given situation.
The purpose of the exercise of equity jurisdiction, among others, is to prevent unjust
enrichment and to ensure restitution.43

The RTC orders which allowed the withdrawal of the deposited funds for the use and
occupation of the subject units were issued pursuant to the RTC’s equity jurisdiction,
as the CA held in the petition docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 81277.

The RTC’s equity jurisdiction is separate and distinct from its appellate jurisdiction on
the ejectment case. The RTC could not have issued its orders in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction since there was nothing more to execute on the dismissed
ejectment case. As the RTC orders explained, the dismissal of the ejectment case
effectively and completely blotted out and cancelled the complaint. Hence, the RTC
orders were clearly issued in the exercise of the RTC’s equity jurisdiction, not on the
basis of its appellate jurisdiction.

This Court takes judicial notice44 that the validity of the RTC Orders has been upheld
in a separate petition before this Court, under G.R. SP No. 171429 entitled Antonio
Dela Cruz v. Regulus Development, Inc.

The levy of real property was ordered by the RTC in the exercise of its equity
jurisdiction.

The levy of the respondent’s property was made pursuant to the RTC orders issued
in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, independent of the ejectment case originally
filed with the MTC.

An examination of the RTC order dated June 30, 2008, directing the levy of the
respondent’s real property shows that it was based on the RTC order dated July 25,
2003. The levy of the respondent’s property was issued to satisfy the amounts due
under the lease contracts, and not as a result of the decision in the ejectment case.

The CA erred when it concluded that the RTC exercised its appellate jurisdiction in
the ejectment case when it directed the levy of the respondent’s property.

Furthermore, the order to levy on the respondent’s real property was consistent with
the first writ of execution issued by the RTC on December 18, 2003, to implement the
RTC orders. The writ of execution states that:

xxx In case of [sic] sufficient personal property of the defendant cannot be found
whereof to satisfy the amount of the said judgment, you are directed to levy [on]
the real property of said defendant and to sell the same or so much thereof in
the manner provided by law for the satisfaction of the said judgment and to
make return of your proceedings together with this Writ within sixty (60) days from
receipt hereof. (emphasis supplied)

The subsequent order of the RTC to levy on the respondent’s property was merely a
reiteration and an enforcement of the original writ of execution issued.1âwphi1

Since the order of levy is clearly rooted on the RTC Orders, the only question that
needs to be resolved is which court has jurisdiction to order the execution of the RTC
orders.
The RTC, as the court of origin, has jurisdiction to order the levy of the
respondent's real property.

Execution shall be applied for in the court of origin, in accordance with Section
1,45 Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

The court of origin with respect to the assailed RTC orders is the court which issued
these orders. The RTC is the court with jurisdiction to order the execution of the
issued RTC orders.

Hence, the petitioner correctly moved for the issuance of the writ of execution and
levy of the respondent's real property before the RTC as the court of origin.

WHEREFORE, we hereby GRANT the petition for review on certiorari. The decision

dated November 23, 2010, and the resolution dated August 10, 2011, of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 105290 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
orders dated June 30, 2008, and August 26, 2008, of Branch 108 of the Regional
Trial Court of Pasay City, are hereby REINSTATED. Costs against respondent
Antonio dela Cruz.

SO ORDERED.

ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA

Associate Justice Associate Justice

MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN

Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's
Division.
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Chief Justice

6. Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Jurisdiction; It is well-settled in jurisprudence that

jurisdiction is vested by law and cannot be conferred or waived by the parties.-
—It is well-settled in jurisprudence that jurisdiction is vested by law and cannot be
conferred or waived by the parties. “Even on appeal and even if the reviewing parties
did not raise the issue of jurisdiction, the reviewing court is not precluded from ruling
that the lower court had no jurisdiction over the case.” Even assuming that the case
has been rendered moot due to the respondent’s redemption of the property, the CA
may still entertain the jurisdictional issue since it poses a situation capable of
repetition yet evading judicial review.
7. Same; Same; Same; “Appellate Jurisdiction” and “Equity Jurisdiction,”
Distinguished.-
—The appellate jurisdiction of courts is conferred by law. The appellate court
acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties when an appeal is perfected.
On the other hand, equity jurisdiction aims to provide complete justice in cases where
a court of law is unable to adapt its judgments to the special circumstances of a case
because of a resulting legal inflexibility when the law is applied to a given situation.
The purpose of the exercise of equity jurisdiction, among others, is to prevent unjust
enrichment and to ensure restitution. The RTC orders which allowed the withdrawal
of the deposited funds for the use and occupation of the subject units were issued
pursuant to the RTC’s equity jurisdiction, as the CA held in the petition docketed as
C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 81277. The RTC’s equity jurisdiction is separate and distinct from
its appellate jurisdiction on the ejectment case. The RTC could not have issued its
orders in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction since there was nothing more to
execute on the dismissed ejectment case. As the RTC orders explained, the
dismissal of the ejectment case effectively and completely blotted out and cancelled
the complaint. Hence, the RTC orders were clearly issued in the exercise of the
RTC’s equity jurisdiction, not on the basis of its appellate jurisdiction.