G.R. Nos. 135180-81; 135425-26 August 16, 2000 3. On December 2, 1996, petitioners served on respondent MMB, Inc.
a
Heirs of the Late Justice JOSE B. L. REYES represented by
ADORACION D. REYES and Heirs of EDMUNDO A. REYES, namely, MA.
TERESA P. REYES and CARLOS P. REYES, petitioners, vs. COURT OF
APPEALS AND METRO MANILA BUILDERS, INC., respondents.
Topic: Preliminary Injunction (halos walang relevant sa Held about
injunction)
*Note: Read the emergency recit first, and the paragraphs in bold coz the
facts expounded on the petitions and motions filed by MMB Inc. (and its a
LOT)
Emergency Recit: An ejectment case was filed by the Heirs against MMB,
Inc., the lessee of their predecessors property. The MTC ruled in favor of the
Heirs, and granted a motion for execution to eject MMB Inc. from the
property. MMB Inc argued that there was no judicial rescission of the
contract. The RTC dismissed Manila Builders appeal and denied their
application for injunctive relief from the MTCs judgment. The CA restrained
the enforcement of the writ of execution, and later set aside the decision of
the MTC. The Heirs appealed to the SC. Pending such appeal, upon motion
by Manila Builders, the CA granted a motion for execution of its own
judgment, including appointing a sheriff to carry out the judgment. SC held
there is no need for judicial rescission as the lease contract was clear on the
LESSORs powers. Also, SC held that CA did not have the power and
jurisdiction to immediately enforce its decision pending appeal.
Doctrine: CA has no authority to issue immediate execution pending appeal
of its own decision. Discretionary execution under Rule 39, Section 2 (a) is
allowed pending appeal of a judgment or final order of the trial court, upon
good reasons to be stated in a special order after due hearing. In this case,
there was no finality yet, and that there were no good reasons stated.
Facts:
1. Brothers Justice J. B. L. Reyes and Dr. Edmundo A. Reyes were co-
owners of a parcel of land located at On November 30, 1976, the
brothers entered into a 25-year lease contract with Metro Manila
Builders, Inc. (MMB, Inc.) at a very low rate of rental in consideration
of the fact that the lessee would cover all present and future
improvements in the property with insurance against certain
risks and maintain the premises in good, sanitary and
tenantable condition at all times.
2. However, in the course of the lease, petitioners found out that
respondent MMB, Inc. had not properly maintained the premises or
covered the same with an adequate insurance policy. Worse,
respondent MMB, Inc. had sub-leased the property to third parties
and was earning therefrom.
notice terminating the lease contract and demanding that they vacate
and surrender the premises subject of the lease to petitioners.
4. Failing to do so, petitioners filed with the MTC Pasay a
complaint for unlawful detainer based on breach of the contract
of lease. MMB Inc., in its answer, did not deny the violations but
questioned the absence of a judicial rescission of the contract
of lease.
5. MTC held in favor of petitioners, ordering MMB, Inc. to vacate
and pay plaintiffs. Petitioners filed a motion for execution of the
judgment eviction.
6. MMB, Inc. filed an appeal with the RTC, but failed to file their
appeal memorandum, so it was dismissed. Such appeal did not
raise an issue on jurisdiction. Hence, MMB, Inc. appealed to the CA.
7. MTC Pasay granted the motion for execution by petitioners.
However, the CA issued a TRO against such execution.
8. Even before the CA can rule on injunctive relief, MMB Inc. withdrew
its appeal. MMB Inc., however, filed a petition for annulment of the
ejectment decision with the RTC 231 on the ground that MTC did not
have jurisdiction, praying for a TRO and/or preliminary injunction.
RTC did not grant such TRO.
9. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss against the petition for
annulment of ejectment decision with the RTC.
10. In order to dramatize its plea, MMB Inc. filed another petition for
certiorari and mandamus, complaining about what it termed as the
sub-silencio denial by the lower court of the injunctive relief.
11. CA issued a resolution giving petitioners, ten (10) days from notice
within which to file their comment on the petition, not a motion to
dismiss, and in the meantime, restrained them from enforcing the
writ of execution.
12. RTC 231 dismissed the petition of MMB Inc. on the ground that their
remedy was supposed to be an appeal in due time. Since such
appeal was withdrawn, it was effectively abandoned. MMB Inc.
should have raised the issue of jurisdiction at the first opportunity,
which was at the MTC.
13. MMB Inc. filed with the CA a series of petitions and motions urging
the CA to issue injunctive relief, seeking to enjoin the MTC from
enforcing the writ of execution.
14. 2 days later, MMB Inc. filed with the CA another case seeking to set
aside the order of RTC 231 and MTC, enjoining the writ of execution.
15. CA consolidated the two MMB Inc. cases. CA held that petitioners
should file a petition, and not a motion to dismiss; that the application
for preliminary injunction was set for hearing; and that RTC 231
elevate to CA the records.
16. MMB Inc., then filed with the RTC 110 a petition seeking a TRO to
enjoin MTC and the sheriff from enforcing the writ of execution.
 17. Petitioners filed their comment/opposition, alleging that the petition of order of the court to elevate the entire original records. And
MMB Inc. was moot as the premises has already been turned over to petitioners proceeded to demolish the improvements on the property
them; that their remedy is an appeal, and not a certiorari. without authority of the CA. However, this was because the
18. CA ruled in favor of MMB Inc., setting aside the orders of the temporary restraining order issued by the CA had lapsed after sixty
MTC, ordering petitioners to restore the property to MMB Inc., (60) days. No more restraining order was in effect until the court
and petitioners were enjoined from disturbing the physical decided the case on its merits. Hence, petitioners acted in good faith
possession of MMB Inc. until after expiration of Lease Contract
in the exercise of their proprietary rights.
19. MMB Inc., filed a very urgent ex-parte motion for execution pending
2. It was bad enough that the CA erred in ruling that the lease contract
appeal, motion to cite in contempt and motion to stop demolition. CA
set it for hearing and restrained petitioners from further demolishing. must be judicially rescinded before respondent MMB, Inc. may be
20. The case was set for oral arguments. However, petitioners filed a evicted from the premises. It was worse that the CA immediately
petition for review with the SC, as well as its comment on the enforced its decision pending appeal restoring respondent in
motions filed by MMB Inc. CA, despite the pending petition with possession of the leased premises and worst, appointed a special
the SC, resolved the case, issuing the writ of execution pending sheriff to carry out the writ of execution. In the first place, CA has no
appeal, and declaring petitioners as guilty of indirect contempt. authority to issue immediate execution pending appeal of its own
CA then designated a special sheriff to enforce the writ, and decision. Discretionary execution under Rule 39, Section 2 (a) is
evicted the petitioners. allowed pending appeal of a judgment or final order of the trial court,
21. Hence, petitioners filed this petition for certiorari to nullify the CA upon good reasons to be stated in a special order after due hearing.
resolution. In this case, there was no finality yet, and that there were no good
reasons stated.
Issue: W/N there was a need for judicial rescission of the contract oflease
3. The mere fact of the filing of the petition for review to the CA, the
before MMB Inc. may be compelled to vacate
finality of the CAs decision was stayed, and there could be no entry
Held: No. There is no need. of judgment therein, and, hence, no premature execution could be
1. It is clear from the provisions of the contract that in case of default or had. The CA adopted its resolution granting execution pending
breach, the LESSOR may, in his absolute discretion, cancel and appeal on after the petition for review was already filed in the SC. It
terminate the contract, and require the tenant to vacate the thereby encroached on the hallowed grounds of the Supreme Court.
premises.
2. There is nothing wrong if the parties to a lease contract agreed on
certain mandatory provisions concerning their respective rights and
obligations, such as the procurement of the insurance and the
rescission clause. As long as such agreements are not contrary to
law, morals, good customs, public policy or public order they shall
have the force of law between them.
3. The law on obligations and contracts does not prohibit parties from
entering into agreement providing that a violation of the terms of the
contract would cause its cancellation even without judicial
intervention. This is what petitioners and respondent entered into, a
lease contract with stipulation that the contract is rescinded upon
violation of its substantial provisions, which MMB, Inc. does not deny
they violated.

Other Important Issues and Ruling by the Court

1. CA declared petitioners guilty of indirect contempt of court because
they implemented the writ of execution of the trial court despite the