Case #1: SOLANDA ENTERPRISES, INC.

VS COURT XOF APPEALS AND LUIS MANLUTAC

FACTS:
 Private Respondent Luis Manlutac living for 40 years in his residence and as tenants/lessees from
land of the Quijanos situated in Tondo, Manila.
 Original owners, Quijanos sold thru a Deed of Absolute Sale the realty to Solanda Enterprises Inc
without giving the the private respondent and other tenants the chance to exercise their pre-
emptive rights as accorded to them by PD No. 1517, subject lots being declared urbanized lands.
 Cerefina Quijano made an offer to private respondent and the other tenants for the sale of the
subject estate. Tenants including private respondents agreed and send a letter to Quijano
informing her their acceptance of proposed sale for PhP2,000 per square meter. Quijano advice
tenants and private respondents the Petitioner is the new owner of the property and payment of
monthly rental should be made to Solanda Enterprises Inc starting July 1, 1991.
 Tenants and private respondents filed with the RTC complaint against Quijano and Solanda for
annulment of sale, reconveyance and damages. RTC rendered decisionunnulling the deed of sale.
 Solanda Enterprises Inc filed with Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila a complaint of ejectment
against private respondent. Manlutac incurred rental arrearages amounting to PhP1,368.
 Judgement rendered in favor of Solanda Enterprises Inc. And ordering private respondent and all
persons claiming right and title under him to vacate the property.
 Private respondent filed with the MTC a Notice to Appeal with Supersedes Cash Bond on
February 11, 1993.
 RTC rendered decision on August 25, 1993 which affirms the decision of MTC.
 Appealed with CA granted the appeal.

ISSUES:
 Whether or not the CA have jurisdiction to review and reverse the appealed RTC decision which
has become final?
 Whether or not does the fact that Manlutac was a tenant on the land in issue for more than entitle
to him to statutory right of first refusal under P.D. 1517 absent an allegation, much less a finding
that the land is inluded in Area of Priority Development and Urban Land Reform Zone.

HELD:
 When a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the RTC is filed on the last day of the
reglementary period to appeal. Sec. 3 of Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court provides the
applicable rule.

Upon receipt of the Regional Trial Court’s order of denial of the motion for reconsideration on
April 8, 1994, Manlutac had only up to the next day, April 9, 1994, to file a petition. The 9th and 10th
day of April 1994, however are legal holidays. Hence Manlutac had up to April 11, 1994 of
immediately succeeding business day to file with the Court of Appeals a petition for review or a motion
for extension of time.

The RTC Decision was appealed within the reglementary period. The court finds no reason to
belabor the matter any further.

 Civil Case No. 91-58568 in which the RTC annulled the sale to petitioner of the disputed parcels
of land belonging to the Quijano Estate is on appeal and thus has no binding effect. Private
respondent’s alleged right of possession is conditioned on his right to acquire ownership over the
land. His right of the possession is, at best, only inchoate. In any event, the private respondent’s
expectation of being granted the preemptive right to purchase the property neither establishes his
right to possess nor justifies the dismissal of the ejectment.

The decision settles merely the issue of physical possession and not the question of ownership
over the disputed property, which may be ruled upon at the proper time by the proper court in Civil
Case No. 91-58568 and/or in such other cases where such ownership issue is squarely raised.