execution pending appeal

8/12/2019 Execution Pending Appeal

1/19

A.M. No. MTJ-05-1580 October 6, 2010

[Formerly OCA IPI No. 04-1608-MTJ

!O"#$%& '. F%##%# ()* P#O&P%#I$A$ M. A#AN$%+, Complainants,vs.

J"$% #OM%O A. #A'ACA, Metroolt() Tr(l Co/rt, 'r()c 25, M()l(,Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

'%#&AMIN, J.:

This administrative case charges Hon. Romeo A. Rabaca, then the residing !"dge o#

$ranch %& o# the 'etropolitan Trial Co"rt o# 'anila ('eTC), *ith ignorance o# the la*,

disregard o# the la*, dereliction o# d"t+, no*ingl+ rendering an "n-"st interloc"tor+

order, and violation o# the Code o# Cond"ct #or overnment O##icials.

The complainants *ere the resident and the E/ec"tive Director o# the plainti## in Civil

Case No. 0123456C7 o# the 'eTC, an e-ectment s"it entitled 8o"ng 9omen:s Christian

Association, Inc. v. Conrado Cano. A#ter trial, Civil Case No. 0123456C7 *as decidedon !"ne %%, %;;5 b+ respondent !"dge,0*ho disposed as #ollo*s that on 4arch 11, 1993 he filed a notice of appeal> and thaton 4arch 1(, 1993, the 4TC ordered the records of the case transmitted to the #TC.

n 4arch '9, 1993, petitioners moved for the eecution of the decision in their favor,alleging that although private respondents had filed a notice of appeal, the latter had notfiled a supersedeas bond nor ma?e ;sic< a deposit ever month of the reasonable value ofthe use and occupation of the properties as required b #ule 0, sec. @.

%rivate respondents opposed the motion, claiming that the are co!owners of the lotsfrom which the were ordered to be e:ected and that to grant immediate eecution of thedecision would render their appeal moot and academic. The later filed a supplement totheir opposition, claiming that while the were after all willing to file a supersedeas bond,but that the had been ?ept bus attending to their businesses and thus unable to securea bond.

n /une 10, 1993, the trial court issued the first of its disputed orders in which it deniedpetitioners motion for eecution on the ground that the transmission b the 4TC of therecords of the e:ectment case to the #TC, without waiting for the epiration of the periodof appeal, prevented private respondents from filing a supersedeas bond on time. Theorder reads)

*+#-#, premises considered, the urgent 4otion for ecutionfiled b plaintiff!appellees is hereb D&2D for lac? of merit.

ccordingl, the defendant appellants are hereb directed to)

a8 To file with this Court a supersedeas bond in the amount of -2A+B&D#D -2-T T+B$&D 7%550,000.008 %$$ within five dasfrom receipt of this rder>

b8 To deposit, within the period aforementioned, an amount of &+B&D#D -2-T T+B$&D 7%150,000.008 %$$ b wa ofaccrued rentals for the months of pril, 4a and /une, 1993> and

c8 To periodicall deposit on or before the tenth da of each succeedingmonths ;sic


8/19

was no basis for the application of an eception to the mandator provision of$ection @ of #ule 0.

*hile sustaining the order of $eptember '0, 1993, #espondent Court set asidethe two other orders issued on /une 10 and 1, 1993. $ubsequentl, said Court

denied the motion for reconsideration.

+ence, this petition for review. 2n a #esolution dated 4arch 11, 199(, this Courtnoted that petitioners had no ob:ection to the substitution of the deceased4ariano 4oreno b his surviving heirs. 8

The Issues

%etitioners allege that the Court of ppeals committed the following errors) 9

2

The Court of ppeals committed a grave error of law when it found that petitionersherein, the private respondents in C.. ".#. $% &. 3''3(, could have filed thesupersedeas bond on time and before /une 10, 1993 when #TC> ranch 2 of atangasCit fied for the first time the amount of supersedeas bond which ruling, if implemented,would have condoned and would have resulted to the violation of the equal protectionclause of the Constitution.

22

The Court of ppeals committed grave error of law when it made grossl erroneousconclusions arising from admitted and undisputed facts which led the said Court of

ppeals to appl the general rule as stated in $ection @ of #ule 0 of the #ules of Court

and not the law on eceptions to said rule.

222

The Court of ppeals committed grave error of law in ma?ing findings of fact contrar tothe admitted and proven facts b the petitioners and private respondents in C.. ".#. $%.&o. 3''3( and not supported b evidence on record.

2A

The Court of ppeals committed an error of law when it ordered the #TC, ranch 2 ofatangas Cit to issue a writ of eecution which, if implemented, would necessaril resultto the deprivation of petitioners herein of their propert without due process of law in

violation of Section 1, Article IIIof the Constitution.

2n the main, the case hinges on whether, after the epiration of the period forperfecting said appeal, the #TC had the authorit to set the amount of andaccept a supersedeas bond to sta the immediate eecution of a decision in ane:ectment suit pending appeal. This encompasses several questions regardingthe nature of a supersedeas bond) *hat is the amount of the bondE *ho, if an,determines the amountE *here and at what point in the litigation should the bondbe filedE *e shall deal with each of these questions.

The Court's Ruling

The petition is not meritorious.

ain Issue) Late Filing of the Supersedeas !ond

The applicable rule in this case is $ection @, #ule 0 of the #ules of Court, whichprovides)17


9/19

$ec. @. I""ediate e#ecution of $udg"ent. +ow to sta same. 2f :udgment is renderedagainst the defendant, eecution shall issue immediatel, unless an appeal has beenperfected and the defendant to sta eecution files a sufficient bond, approved b themunicipal or cit court and eecuted to the plaintiff to enter the action in the Court of -irst2nstance and to pa the rents, damages, and costs accruing down to the time of the

:udgment appealed from, and unless, during the pendenc of the appeal, he deposits withthe appellate court the amount of rent due from time to time under the contract, if an, asfound b the :udgment of the municipal or cit court to eist. 2n the absence of a contract,he shall deposit with the court the reasonable value of the use and occupation of thepremises for the preceding month or period at the rate determined b the :udgment, on orbefore the tenth da of each succeeding month or period. The supersedeas bond shall betransmitted b the municipal or cit court, with the other papers, to the cler? of the Courtof -irst 2nstance to which the action is appealed.

s a general rule, a :udgment in favor of the plaintiff in an e:ectment suit isimmediatel eecutor, in order to prevent further damage to him arising from theloss of possession of the propert in question. 11To sta the immediate eecution

of the said :udgment while the appeal is pending, the foregoing provision requiresthat the following requisites must concur) 718 the defendant perfects his appeal>7'8 he files a supersedeas bond> and 738 he periodicall deposits the rentalswhich become due during the pendenc of the appeal. 12 The failure of thedefendant to compl with an% of these conditions is a ground for the outrighte#ecutionof the :udgment, the dut of the court in this respect being ministerialand imperative. 13+ence, if the defendant!appellant perfected the appeal butfailed to file a supersedeas bond, the immediate eecution of the :udgment wouldautomaticall follow. Conversel, the filing of a supersedeas bond will not stathe eecution of the :udgment if the appeal is not perfected. &ecessaril then, thesupersedeas bond should be filed within the period for the perfection of the

appeal.

2n the present case, petitioners filed their notice of appeal on 4arch 11, 1993, ada after their receipt of the 4TC=s decision. n 4arch 1(, 1993, or five daslater, the 4TC transmitted the records of the case to the #TC. n 4arch '9,1993, the private respondents filed a motion for the immediate eecution of thedecision. s noted earlier, petitioners opposed the motion on the ground thatthe were co!owners of the propert. n /une 10, 1993, the #TC denied themotion for eecution and directed petitioners to file a supersedeas bond. n theauthorit of the #TC order, petitioners filed a cash bond, which was latersubstituted with a suret bond.

*e agree with the Court of ppeals that the bond was filed out of time. "'e0o&*o or e(e)u&*o a% *-e! e*'&ee !ay% ro0 &'e !a&e &'e +e&*&*oer%re)e*e! a )o+y o &'e M"C% !e)*%*o, a&er &'e a++ea- 'a! a-rea!y bee+ere)&e!. $e)au%e o %u+er%e!ea% bo! 'a! bee *-e! *&'* &'e +er*o!or a++ea-, a r*& o e(e)u&*o %'ou-! 'ae bee *%%ue! a% a 0a&&er o r*'&.%etitioners manifestl failed to adduce a compelling reason to :ustif a departurefrom the aforecited rule.

%etitioners contend that the dela should be ecused because the 4TC, withoutfiing the amount of the bond, transmitted the records of the case to the #TC

even before the perfection of the appeal, 14 i.e., the epiration of the period forfiling an appeal.15+ence, the did not ?now whether to file a bond with the #TCor with the 4TC. &either were the certain of the amount of the bond.

&o the A"ount of Supersedeas!ond Is (eter"ined


10/19

%etitioners need not require the 4TC to fi the amount of the supersedeas bond.The could have computed this themselves. s earl as 196, we have held in

A%lon vs.)ugo and (e *ablothat the supersedeas bond is equivalent to theamount of rentals, damages and costs stated in the :udgment) 16

. . . Bnder the provisions of $ection @ of the #ule, a :ustice of the peace or a municipalcourt ma require the defendant to file a bond for an amount which would cover thestipulated rentals, as found b% the $udg"ent of the Court, or the reasonable value for theuse and occupation of the pre"ises, at the rate deter"ined b% the $udg"ent, da"agesand costsdown to the time of the final :udgment in the action. The reasonable value forthe use and occupation of the premises, the possession of which is sought to berecovered, is that fied b the Court in the :udgment, because the rental stipulated in thecontract of lease that has epired or terminated ma no longer be the reasonable valuefor the use and occupation of the premises as a result or b reason of the change or risein values. ut the bond together with the appeal is onl to prevent the immediateeecution of a :udgment rendered against the defendant in forcible entr and detainercases. $uch eecution must be prevented further b paing to the plaintiff or depositingwith the Court of -irst 2nstance, during the pendenc of the appeal, the stipulated rentaldue from time to time under the contract, as found b the :udgment of the Court, or, in the

absence of a contract, the reasonable value for the use and occupation of the premisesfor the preceding month, on or before the tenth da of each calendar month, at the ratedetermined b the :udgment. 7mphasis supplied8

Bnder $ection @ of #ule 0, the supersedeas bond shall be equivalent to theunpaid rentals, damages and costs which accrued before the decision wasrendered, as determined b the 4TC in the said decision. 1The bond does notanswer for amounts accruing during the pendenc of the appeal, which are, inturn, the sub:ect of the periodic deposits to be made b the defendant. 18

2n the present case, the 4TC clearl stated in its 4arch 5, 1993 decision that

petitioners should pa rentals of %50,000 a month from pril , 199' until theshall have vacated the lots. The amount comprising the supersedeas bond andthe periodic deposits, therefore, is evident and computable from the 4TC=sdecision.

+here Is theSupersedeas !ond FiledE

2n the light of the peculiar circumstances of this case, petitioners allege that thecould not determine whether to file the supersedeas bond with the 4TC or the#TC. Thus, the argue)19

'@. 2n the facts of the dispute involved in his petition, the court of origin cannot fi theamount of supersedeas bond since the records are no longer with it. The #TC on theother hand cannot fi the amount of supersedeas bond since the appeal has not et beenperfected and, after the same has been perfected, the unlawful detainer case records ore#pediente 7case folder8 must first pass through several administrative processes suchas doc?eting, chec?ing for completeness of e#pediente, raffle and finall ta?ingcogniFance or initial action of the said appeal b the branch of the #TC to which it wasraffled.

%etitioners= submissions are meritless. s earlier observed, there is no need foreither the 4TC or the #TC to fi the amount of the supersedeas bond, the samebeing manifest in the face of the 4TCs decision. 4oreover, petitioner failed to file

the bond on time not because the did not ?now where to file it, but because thebelieved that the should not do so. +ence, their opposition to the motion foreecution was based on their alleged co!ownership of the propert. 2t was onlbefore the Court of ppeals that the claimed confusion on where the bondshould be filed. The Court of ppeals discarded petitioners= argument in thiswise)


11/19

Their claim that the did not ?now where to file the supersedeas bond is being made onlnow. 2ndeed, in opposing petitioners= motion for eecution the based their opposition noton this ground but on the claim that since the were claiming to be co!owners of the lotsin question, their claim would be rendered moot and academic if eecution were orderedpending appeal. 2t is, therefore, not true that the were prevented from filing asupersedeas bond because the 4TC transmitted the records of the case to the #TCbefore the epiration of private respondents= period of appeal.

%etitioners also argue that Laurel vs. Abalos 27should be applied here. 2n thatcase, this Court held that ;w


12/19

The pendenc of the action for partition, where ownership is one of the principalissues, does not preclude the eecution of the :udgment in the e:ectment suit.$uch action for partition is entirel independent of the e:ectment suit. 26n theother hand, the issue of ownership is considered in an e:ectment suit onl for thelimited purpose of determining who between the contending parties has the

better right to possession.2

4oreover, it should be stressed that we are not beingcalled upon here to decide which of the parties has a better right of possession,let alone, a better title to the propert. The onl issue in this case is whether ornot a writ of eecution should be issuedpending appeal of the e$ect"ent suit.

2n an event, it is erroneous to characteriFe the partition suit as a compellingreason to sta the eecution of the :udgment pending appeal. n the contrar,the fact that the titles to the disputed lots are in the name of %rivate #espondent4ariano C. 4oreno, and not in the name of petitioners or their father Chua +ai,

:ustifies the transfer of possession of the said propert to the privaterespondents, at least during the appeal. The question of irreparable in:ur to

petitioners, on the other hand, cannot be discussed at this forum, for this Court isnot a trier of facts. 282n an case, this question of irreparable in:ur is, at best,speculative and con:ectural, and deserves no further disquisition.

Coming bac? to the original question, the bond should be filed before the 4TCor, where the records have been forwarded to the #TC, before the latter court. 2neither case, it should be done during the period of appeal.

Secondar% Issue)

(eprivation of *ropert% +ithout (ue *rocess

%etitioners submit that the are the eclusive and absolute owners of successfuland profit;!


13/19

G.R. No. 114377 Auu%& 4, 1994

CA"A#INO SAN PE:RO, a! SPS. PE:IE ; CECI#IA GUANA#OO>AN CI"?, :EPU"?SHERIFF @IRGI#IO A. SORIANO ; I##IAM #E:ESMA, respondents.

( Rigor Advincula La /ffice for petitioners

anuel I"bong for private respondent

CRU '8 pa the amount of %1',000.00 monthl as reasonable compensation for

the use and occupation of the said premises from $eptember (, 199', up to thetime the actuall surrender the premises> and 38 pa %5,000.00 as and forattorne=s fees and %1((.00 as costs of the suit. 2

-rom this decision, the spouses appealed to the #egional Trial Court of Haloo?anCit.

Iater, the Iorestos, together with petitioner Catalino $an %edro, instituted anaction for the annulment of Iedesma=s title over the disputed propert, premisedmainl on the ground that it had alread been titled in the name of Don 4ariano$an %edro under Titulo %ropriedad &o. 613( and has been in the possession of

the predecessors of petitioner $an %edro since 1900.

3

This was doc?eted as CivilCase &o. C!15990 in ranch 1'5 of the #egional Trial Court of Haloo?an Cit.

n $eptember 16, 1993, Iedesma filed a motion for eecution pending appealfor failure of the petitioner spouses to ma?e the periodic deposits of %1',000.00as reasonable value of the use of the premises as fied in the appealed decision.4 The motion was granted 5 and a writ of eecution and notice to vacate wereforthwith issued.


14/19

The petitioners then filed with the respondent Court of ppeals a petition forcertiorari, "anda"us and prohibition, which was denied in a decision dated/anuar 11, 1996. 6*hen their subsequent motion for reconsideration was alsodenied,the came to this Court for relief.

/udgments in e:ectment cases which are favorable to the plaintiff are immediateleecutor. The can be staed b the defendant onl b) a8 perfecting an appeal>b8 filing a supersedeas bond> and c8 ma?ing a periodic deposit of the rental or thereasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the propert during thependenc of the appeal.8

These requisites must concur. Thus, even if the defendant had appealed andfiled a supersedeas bond but failed to pa the accruing rentals , &'e a++e--a&e

)our& )ou-!, u+o 0o&*o o &'e +-a*&* *&' o&*)e &o &'e !ee!a&, a!u+o +roo o %u)' a*-ure, or!er &'e *00e!*a&e e(e)u&*o o &'e a++ea-e!!e)*%*o *&'ou& +re/u!*)e &o &'e a++ea- &a* *&% )our%e . 9 $uch deposit,

li?e the supersedeas bond, is a mandator requirement> hence, if it is notcomplied with, eecution will issue as a matter of right. The onl eceptions arethe eistence of fraud, accident, mista?e or ecusable negligence whichprevented the defendant from ma?ing the monthl deposit, or the occurrence ofsupervening events which have brought about a material change in the situationof the parties and would ma?e the eecution inequitable.17

2n the case at bar, the petitioner spouses do not den having failed to ma?e themonthl deposits of %1',000.00. &either do the claim that the eception appliesin this case. The lower court cannot therefore be faulted for merel complingwith its ministerial dut under the #ules of Court to issue the writ of eecution

pending appeal. &either can lac? or ecess of :urisdiction or grave abuse ofdiscretion be ascribed to the respondent Court when it sustained the issuance ofthe writ.

The petitioners argue that eecution of the decision in the eviction case could notbe ordered because of the pendenc of their annulment suit in another court.

The argument is untenable.

-irml settled is the rule that the pendenc of an action questioning theownership of propert will not abate e:ectment suits or bar the eecution of the

:udgments therein.

11

2n *ilmon uto $uppl Corp. v. Court of ppeals, 12 this Court specified thecases where this principle was applied, thus)

1. In$unction suits instituted in the #TC b defendants in e:ectment actions in themunicipal trial courts or other courts of the first level 7&acorda v. atco, 1 $C#9'0 ;19(( and neither do proceedings on consignationof rentals 7Iim $i v. Iim, 9@ %hil. @(@ ;195(


15/19

6. n action for quieting of title to propert is not a bar to an e:ectment suitinvolving the same propert 7Juimpo v. de la Aictoria, 6( $C# 139 ;19'


16/19

averment that the private respondent is claiming the wrong lot. These are factualmatters that should be threshed out in the annulment suit pending with ranch1'5 of the #egional Trial Court of Haloo?an Cit.

*+#-#, the petition is D&2D for lac? of merit, with costs against the

petitioners.

$ #D#D.

(avide, .uiason and 0apunan, )), concur

!ellosillo, ), is on official leave

G.R. No. 143395. July 24, 2003]

WILFREDO SILVERIO, ERNESTO DEL CASTILLO, !" #ONORATO DEL

CASTILLO, JR.,petitioners, vs.#ON. CO$RT OF A%%EALS !" GELARDATOLENTINO &'(&')'!*'" +y '& **o&!'y-!-/* ATILDE T.

ADILLO,Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CORONA,J.:

Before us is a petition for review of the resolution[1dated February 15, 2000 of theCourt of Appeals[2denying the petitioners appeal from the deision[!dated "ovember

10, 1### of the $egional %rial Court &$%C', Branh 1(), of *a+ati City whih in turn

affirmed the deision dated February 25, 1### of the *etropolitan %rial Court &*%C',Branh )2, of *a+ati City

-etitioners .ilfredo /ilverio, rnesto del Castillo and onorato del Castillo, r laimthat their aunt, ugenia del Castillo, owned a !55 s3uare4meter lot &evidened by

%ransfer Certifiate of %itle "o 126! issued by the $egister of 7eeds of $i8al' andthree residential houses ereted thereon loated at onomia /treet, *a+ati City

.hen she died in 1#6!, they, as fored heirs of ugenia, beame the o4owners ofthe sub9et lot and so they lived in the houses thereon

:n 1##, petitioners disovered that a ertain *anuel del Castillo already owned thesub9et lot by virtue of a deed of donation e;euted by ugenia in favor of *anuel

who later had it titled in his name ue8on City, %ransfer Certifiate of %itle "o211!01 was issued in the name of respondent

%hereafter, respondent went to the sub9et premises and verbally as+ed the

petitioners to vaate the premises .hen petitioners pleaded to be given suffiienttime to leave, respondent granted them until une 15, 1##6 to vaate owever, the

said period lapsed without the petitioners vaating the sub9et lot $espondents legal

ounsel then sent a demand letter to the petitioners but the latter refused to reeivethe same and even threatened to hurt the messenger if he insisted on having thedoument offiially reeived ene, the letter was served by registered mail and a

opy of the same was posted at the entrane of the sub9et property


17/19

/eptember 1#, 1##6, respondent ountered by filing before the *%C of *a+ati Citythe sub9et e9etment ase

against the petitioners


18/19

original opies of the said $%C orders were in fat attahed to one of the sevenopies of the petition filed in the Court of Appeals *oreover, opies of the same

orders were submitted by the petitioners in their motion for reonsideration

:n the ase at bar, it was inappropriate for the Court of Appeals to deny the petitionon the ground alone that the petitioner failed to attah to the said petition a

dupliate original or true opy of the *%C deision beause it was supposed to reviewthe deision not of the *%C but of the $%C, notwithstanding that the latter affirmedin totothe 9udgment of the *%C :n short, the failure to attah the *%C deision did

not adversely affet the suffiieny of the petition beause it was, in any event,aompanied by the $%C deision sought to be reviewed

All this notwithstanding the petition has no merit

-etitioners pray for the dismissal of the e9etment ase due to the failure of the

respondent to provethat she made a demand on them to leave the premises prior tothe filing of the suit .hat prevents a trial ourt from a3uiring 9urisdition in

e9etment ases is the failure to allege in the omplaint that a demand was made,

not the fat that plaintiff failed to prove said allegation :n e9etment ases, the trialourt does not assume 9urisdition if the omplaint fails to allege that a demand hasbeen made[6:n ase the plaintiff fails to prove said demand despite allegations in

the omplaint to that effet, the ase should be dismissed not beause of la+ of

9urisdition but beause the omplainant did not meet the evidentiary re3uirement&preponderane of evidene' to merit the 9udiial evition of a defendant

:n the ase at bar, the omplaint shows that respondent made an oral and thereafter

a written demand on the petitioners to vaate the premises -aragraph # of theomplaint reads as follows?

#


19/19

W#EREFORE, premises onsidered, the appeal is hereby 7":7 Costs against thepetitioners

SO ORDERED

execution pending appeal

Documents