Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC v. SUNVAR REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 155701 2015-03-11	LIM TECK CHUAN v. SERAFIN UY REYES, J.
Preliminarily, the respondents question the petitioner's recourse to this Court in filing the instant petition alleging that no appeal may be taken from an order of the RTC dismissing an action without prejudice.[35] Nonetheless, the Rules of Court do not prohibit any of the parties from filing a Rule 45 petition with this Court in case only questions of law are raised or involved.[36] In Bukidnon Doctors' Hospital, Inc. v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co.,[37] the Court explained that: Section 2(c), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court categorically provides that in all cases where only questions of law are raised, the appeal from a decision or order of the Regional Trial Court shall be to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45. Section 2(c) of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court reads:
	GR No. 193707 2014-12-10	NORMA A. DEL SOCORRO v. ERNST JOHAN BRINKMAN VAN WILSEM PERALTA, J.
At the outset, let it be emphasized that We are taking cognizance of the instant petition despite the fact that the same was directly lodged with the Supreme Court, consistent with the ruling in Republic v. Sunvar Realty Development Corporation,[28] which lays down the instances when a ruling of the trial court may be brought on appeal directly to the Supreme Court without violating the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, to wit: x x x Nevertheless, the Rules do not prohibit any of the parties from filing a Rule 45 Petition with this Court, in case only questions of law are raised or involved. This latter situation was one that petitioners found themselves in when they filed the instant Petition to raise only questions of law.
	GR No. 207376 2014-08-06	AIDA PADILLA v. GLOBE ASIATIQUE REALTY HOLDINGS CORPORATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In Republic v. Sunvar Realty Development Corporation,[30] this Court held: Respondent Sunvar argued that petitioners' resort to a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari before this Court is an improper mode of review of the assailed RTC Decision. Allegedly, petitioners should have availed themselves of a Rule 65 Petition instead, since the RTC Decision was an order of dismissal of the Complaint, from which no appeal can be taken except by a certiorari petition.
	GR No. 201787 2013-09-25	ANALITA P. INOCENCIO v. HOSPICIO DE SAN JOSE CARPIO, J.
We also find that the action for unlawful detainer was not barred by prescription. Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides that actions for unlawful detainer must be filed "within one (1) year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession." In interpreting the foregoing provision, this Court, in Republic v. Sunvar Realty Development Corporation,[53] held that:[T]he one-year period to file an unlawful detainer case is not counted from the expiration of the lease contract on 31 December 2002. Indeed, the last demand for petitioners to vacate is the reckoning period for determining the one-year period in an action for unlawful detainer. "Such one year period should be counted from the date of plaintiff's last demand on defendant to vacate the real property, because only upon the lapse of that period does the possession become unlawful."[54]