DOMINGO VERGARA, SR., petitioner, vs. HON. JOSE T. SUELTO Presiding Judge of t e Muni!

i"#$ Tri#$ %ourt in D#&#o %it', (r#n! IV, MANOLITO GUINOO ROMEO MONTE(ON #nd POR)ERIO %A(ASE respondents. NARVASA, J.: G.R. No. *+*,, De!e-.er /0, 012* Two issues are involved in the instant special civil action of mandamus. )A%TS3 1) Petitioner Vergara is the owner of a commercial building consisting of 3 sections, each of which is separately occupied by the private respondents as lessees; ) the defendants! lease contracts, two of which were written, were all on "a month to month basis, originally prescribed a monthly rental of P3#$.$$, later increase to P%#$.$$; 3) because the defendants all defaulted in the payment of their rentals for many months, Vergara!s lawyer sent each of them a letter "&1) demanding payment of their unpaid rentals, & ) terminating their lease contracts on grounds' non( payment of rentals and plaintiff!s need of the property for some other purpose, and &3) demanding that defendants vacate the leased premises not later than the end of said month of )ecember 1*+#; " %) the defendants sent Vergara a ,oint reply stating this confirmation to leave the said premises. -owever, they re.uested for e/tension for another 3 months due to economic reason, 0 for them to find new space. 1n addition, defendant 2ontebon also paid a part of his arrearage; #) later however, the defendants wrote Vergara another letter; this time, they refused to leave the premises on the ground that the lot on which the building stands, though titled in Vergara!s name, was part of a tract of land 1dentified ordered reverted to the public domain by the 3T4 in a decision rendered in a 4ivil 4ase. 5) Vergara wrote bac6, reiterating his demand to vacate; his reply having ignored, he referred to the 7upon ng 8arangay; and when the controversy was not settled by conciliation, he instituted the e,ectment suit at bar. Petitioner Vergara commenced in the 2T4 of )avao 4ity an action for unlawful detainer against the private respondents GUINOO, MONTE(ON and %A(ASE. 1n their answer to the complaint, 4 defendants 9 1) denied Vergara!s ownership of the building ) claimed that their lease contract was null and void; 3) claiming that they had been "occupying the premises in the concept of an owner;, %) claimed that by virtue of the ,udgment of the 3T4 in 4ivil 4ase declaring null and void the title issued over a certain( of which Vergara!s was formerly a part, they were claiming Vergara!s land "as their share as member of Salandanan et al Landless Association," which was "a recogni:ed intervenor" in the case. Vergara filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. 5

)efendants filed an "Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss. " 2 They argued, among others, that 9 1. 1t "cannot be resolved by mere resort to summary ,udgment," that issue having arisen from Vergara!s claim "of possession and ownership over the commercial building and the land. 3. The 4ourt had no ,urisdiction over the case because "the real issue involved ... is title and;or ownership of the property and not physical possession," and "this case should not be by accion interdictal but accion de reivendicacion . " MT% 6res"ondent Judge73 1. denied the defendants! motion to dismiss bec. (2T4 believes there was <nlawful )etainer. =hich, in accordance with >ection 33 of 8P 1 * said court has authority to resolve the issue of ownership if only to determine the issue of possession. . denied Vergara!s motion for summary ,udgment. ?n the ground that ( ... there was material allegations of facts in the complaint constituting plaintiff's cause of action. The rule gives the court limited authority to enter summary ,udgment. <pon a motion for summary ,udgment, the court!s sole function is to determine whether there is an issue of fact to be tried. ISSUE 1: WON the appropriateness of a summary judgment may ever be so se f!evident in a "ase so as to grant the p aintiff#s motion therefor by the $ria Judge. ISSUE /3 8ON app i"ation for a %rit of mandamus against a muni"ipa tria "ourt be fi ed dire"t y %ith the Supreme &ourt "onsidering that jurisdi"tion to issue this e'traordinary %rit is a so possessed by the &ourt of (ppea s as %e as the )egiona $ria &ourt. S% HELD3 1. @ven if the answer does tender issues and therefore a ,udgment on the pleadings is not proper(a summary judgment may still be rendered. 1f he can show to the 4ourt!s satisfaction that "e/cept as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact," that is to say, the issues thus tendered are not genuine or patently unsubstantial.

1n this case, the defendants! answer appears on its face to tender issues. 8ut the issues thus tendered are not genuine. Premises considered, the propriety of a summary ,udgment cannot be disputed.

The remedy properly available to the petitioner, however, is not the writ of mandamus. Well known is the rule that mandamus issues only to compel performance of a mandatory, ministerial duty.
. >uch a direct recourse to the >upreme 4ourt should not be allowed. The >upreme 4ourt is a court of last resort. 1t cannot and should not be burdened with the tas6 of dealing with causes in the first instance.

1ts original ,urisdiction to issue the so(called e/traordinary writs should be e/ercised only where absolutely necessary or where serious and important reasons e/ist therefor. -ence, that ,urisdiction should generally be e/ercised relative to actions or proceedings before the 4ourt of Appeals, or before constitutional or other tribunals, bodies or agencies whose acts for some reason or another, are not controllable by the 4ourt of Appeals. =here the issuance of an e/traordinary writ is also within the competence of the 4ourt of Appeals or a 3egional Trial 4ourt, it is in either of these courts that the specific action for the writ!s procurement must be presented. This is and should continue to be the policy in this regard, a policy that courts and lawyers must strictly observe. 1n the case at bar, however, to apply the policy by referring the action to the 3egional Trial 4ourt of the district would serve no useful purpose. 1t would on the contrary wor6 in,ustice to the petitioner to whom the relief rightly due has already been withheld for many years. The case having been filed before this 4ourt as early as 1*+5, and having already been sub,ect of an e/tensive e/change of pleadings, it should and will now be decided without further delay. =-@3@B?3@, the ?rder of the respondent Cudge denying the petitioner!s &plaintiff!s) motion for summary ,udgment, and declining to reconsider the same, are hereby annulled and set aside. >aid respondent Cudge is hereby commanded forthwith to render a summary ,udgment in favor of the petitioner &plaintiff) against the private respondents &defendants), in accordance with the prayer of the former!s motion for summary ,udgment. The appropriateness and correctness of a summary ,udgment in the premises having already been ad,udged by this 4ourt, -is -onor is further commanded to direct e/ecution of the ,udgment immediately upon its rendition. This decision is immediately e/ecutory and no motion for e/tension of time to file a motion for reconsideration shall be entertained. 4osts against private respondents.