You are on page 1of 3

Ortigas & Co. v. Court of Appeals & Dar v.

Alonzo-Legasto
Ortigas & Co. v. Court of Appeals | Quisumbing
G.R. No. 126102, December 4, 2000 | 346 SCRA 748
Keywords: single-family residential building, zoning
ordinance, lessee as real party-in-interest

NOTE
This digest was adjusted to meet our needs for the November
25 class.
RATIO DECIDENDI
A lessee or a possessor in the concept of holder of the thing
may be the real party-in-interest if he/she stands to be benefited
or injured by the judgment.
A party who impleads another cannot later question the
standing of the latter.
FACTS
Ortigas & Co. (Ortigas) sold to Emilia Hermoso
(Hermoso) a parcel of land, with the condition that
only a single-family residential building shall be
erected on the same.
A few years later, the Metro Manila Development
Authority (MMDA) issued a zoning ordinance which
effectively reclassified the land bought by Hermoso
from residential to commercial.
Hermoso leased the land to Ismael Mathay III
(Mathay). Mathay constructed a single-storey
commercial building on the land.

Ortigas sued Hermoso for breach of contract and prayed


for the demolition of the building. Mathay was
subsequently impleaded as a respondent.
The lower court ruled in favor of Ortigas. Mathay
moved for reconsideration, but he was rebuffed. He
filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court
of Appeals (CA), ascribing grave abuse of discretion on
the part of the lower court judge. The CA ruled in his
favor, hence this review on certiorari filed by Ortigas.
Please take note that two issues where raised by Ortigas
when this matter was elevated to the Supreme Court:
W/N the zoning ordinance should be read into the
contract between Ortigas and Hermoso; and
W/N Mathay is a real party-in-interest
considering that he is a mere lessee and there is
no privity of contract between him and Ortigas.

ISSUES & ARGUMENTS


W/N Mathay is a real party-in-interest considering that he is a
mere lessee and there is no privity of contract between him and
Ortigas
(Note: To complete the picture, here is how the Court resolved
the first issue: Although, as a general rule, laws are to be
applied prospectively, not retroactively, there are
exceptions to this, one of which is when the State exercises
police power for the common weal. The zoning ordinance
issued by the MMDA is an exercise of the States police power,
and is therefore applicable retroactively. The CA rightfully
Page 1 of 3

Ortigas & Co. v. Court of Appeals & Dar v. Alonzo-Legasto


read the provisions of the ordinance into the contract
between Ortigas and Hermoso.)
HELD & RATIONALE
YES, Mathay is a real party-in-interest.

First, Mathay is a possessor in the concept of a


holder of the thing under Art. 525, CC; therefore, he
has an interest in the property.
Second, what Ortigas prayed for is the demolition of the
building erected by Mathay on the property. As the
owner of the building, he has a material interest in
it, and he obviously stands either to be benefited or
injured after the case is decided.
Lastly, Ortigas impleaded Mathay as a respondent; as
such, it can no longer question his standing by virtue
of estoppel.

Dar v. Alonzo-Legasto | Kapunan


G.R. No. 143016, August 30, 2000 | 339 SCRA 306
Keywords: unlawful detainer, sued as Mr. and Mrs., one
spouse signed Certification of Non-Forum Shopping,
petition for review on certiorari and mandamus
RATIO DECIDENDI
In cases where both spouses were sued and their property
regime is absolute community of property, with respect to the
requirement that a Certification of Non-Forum Shopping be

attached to a petition for review on certiorari and mandamus


filed either with the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court,
the signature of one of the spouses appearing on such
certification is enough, there being substantial compliance with
the requirement.
FACTS
Mr. and Mrs. Dar, Mr. and Mrs. Angeles, Mr. and Mrs.
Constantino, and Mr. and Mrs. Cruz (Dar et al.) were
sued by Nenita Bautista (Bautista) for unlawful
detainer. They were sued as Mr. and Mrs. The
lower court ordered their ejectment.
Dar et al. filed a petition for review on certiorari and
mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA). In
compliance with Administrative Circular No. 04-94,
Dar et al. attached a Certification of Non-Forum
Shopping to their petition. However, only one spouse
from each couple signed the same.
The CA dismissed their petition for non-compliance
with the requirement, hence this petition for review on
certiorari.
ISSUES & ARGUMENTS
W/N both of the spouses should sign the Certification of NonForum Shopping
HELD & RATIONALE
NO, it is enough that one of the spouses signs the certification.
Page 2 of 3

Ortigas & Co. v. Court of Appeals & Dar v. Alonzo-Legasto

First, they were sued by Bautista as Mr. and Mrs., as


husband and wife. In addition to this, their property
regime is absolute community of property.
Second, although the circular demands strict
compliance on its face, it only requires substantial
compliance.
Lastly, technical rules are meant to facilitate justice, not
subvert it.

Page 3 of 3