Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1946 > August 1946 Decisions > G.R. No. L-362 August 31, 1946 - AMADO CALUAG DOMINGO v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF NUEVA ECIJA, ET AL.

077 Phil 175:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-362. August 31, 1946.]

AMADO CALUAG DOMINGO, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF NUEVA ECIJA and FELISA ROMAN VDA. DE MORENO, Respondents.

Aurelio Quitoriano for Petitioner.

Agustin Alvarez Salazar for Respondents.

SYLLABUS


1. EJECTMENT; EXECUTION; WAIVER OF RIGHT TO IMMEDIATE EXECUTION; CASE AT BAR. — Under section 8 of Rule 72 of the Rules; of Court, the winning plaintiff in an ejectment case is entitled to move for immediate execution—and the court is bound to grant the same—unless the defendant, who has appealed from the decision of the justice of the peace or municipal court, files a supersedeas bond and, during the pendency of the appeal, pays to the plaintiff or to the court the rents due from time to time. The respondent, however, had waived her right to immediate execution, in that she, after the petitioner had already failed to pay the rents that fell due after the decision of the justice of the peace court of November 27, 1941, had on two occasions agreed to suspend execution upon the mere filing by the petitioner of a cash bond for P1,000, first in 1944 (Japanese notes) and, then, in 1945 (Philippine currency) with the approval of the court.

2. ID.; ID.; SUPERSEDEAS BOND; EFFECT AFTER JUDGMENT OF COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE. — The supersedeas bond filed before the rendition of the judgment of the Court of First Instance continues to be effective thereafter in case the defendant appeals, as may be inferred from section 9 of Rule 72 of the Rules of Court.


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, J.:


In an ejectment case instituted in the justice of the peace court of San Antonio, Nueva Ecija, in which the respondent (Felisa Roman Vda. de Moreno) was the plaintiff and the petitioner (Amando Caluag Domingo) the defendant, the latter was sentenced, in a decision rendered on November 27, 1941, to vacate the controverted land and to pay P30 (unpaid balance of the rent from September, 1940, to September, 1941), plus the sum of P65 annually thereafter until actual restitution of the land to Felisa Roman, and the costs. During the pendency of the appeal interposed by the petitioner in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, Felisa Roman filed a motion for the execution of the decision of the justice of the peace court in view of the failure of the petitioner to file a supersedeas bond and to pay to Felisa Roman or to the court the rents awarded in the decision of the justice of the peace court, whereupon the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija issued an order, dated September 9, 1943, directing the execution prayed for. The petitioner subsequently was able to have this order of execution lifted, but not without posting a bond for P1,000 required by the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija in its order of August 2, 1944. Said bond (which was in Japanese military notes) was substituted by a cash bond for the same amount, but in Philippine currency, filed by agreement of the parties and approved by the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija in the order of August 8, 1946, which further provided that execution would automatically follow if said bond was not put up within twelve days. On December 20, 1945, notwithstanding the existence of this new bond, the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, acceding to another petition of Felisa Roman, ordered "the execution of the decision under the provisions of Rule 72, of the Rules of Court." This last order is sought to be annulled in the certiorari proceedings now before us, instituted by the petitioner.

The attorney for the respondents contends—and this is the basis of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija for directing the execution—that "apesar de haberse hecho el deposito de mil pesos por el demandado Calaug Domingo, primero en Japanese notes y despues en Philippine currency, ello vino a constituir solamente la fianza de supersedeas provista en la segunda condicion prevista para la suspension de la ejecucion," and that, if the petitioner wanted to have the execution suspended, he should have paid "al demandante o en la escribania del juzgado, todas las cantidades que venia a ser condenado a pagar, desde el juzgado de paz, hasta la fecha de referencia 20 de diciembre de 1945, y del mismo modo en lo sucesivo, por cada pago que periodicamente debiera hacer segun la sentencia."cralaw virtua1aw library

Ordinarily, under section 8 of Rule 72 of the Rules of Court, the winning plaintiff in an ejectment case is entitled to move for immediate execution — and the court is appealed from the decision of the justice of the peace or municipal court, files a supersedeas bond and, during the pendency of the appeal, pays to the plaintiff or to the court the rents due from time to time. The facts of the case at bar, however, show that the respondent Felisa Roman, by her own act, had waived her right to immediate execution, in that she, after the petitioner had already failed to pay the rents the fell due after the decision of the justice of the peace court of November 27, 1941, had on two occasions agreed to suspend execution upon the mere filing by the petitioner of a cash bond for P1,000, first in 1944 (Japanese notes) and, then, in 1945 (Philippine currency). Indeed, the agreement was approved by the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija in its order of August 8, 1945, which recited partly as follows: "Aprobando este convenio, por la presente se fija en P1,000 la fianza que debe prestar el demandado dentro del termino de 12 dias, a contar desde la fecha de la haciera, automaticamente se ordenaria la ejecucion de la sentencia del juzgado de paz."cralaw virtua1aw library

That the sense of the agreement referred to and approved in this order was to suspend execution after the filing of the cash bond, is clearly deduced from the warning "entendiendose que si asi no lo hiciera, automaticamente se ordenaria la ejecucion de la sentencia del j uzgado de paz," and from the amount of said bond which is sufficient to cover the rents for more than ten years, it appearing that the decision of the justice of the peace court sentenced the petitioner to pay only P30 (unpaid balance from September, 1940, to September, 1941) and P65 yearly from September, 1941, plus the costs, and that the back rents in 1945 when the cash bond of P1,000 was filed, amounted to the insignificant sum of P290. If, as held in Mitschiener v. Barrios (76 Phil., 55), the supersedeas bond "has, in effect, the purpose of securing only the payment of rents in arears," the amount of P1,000 was abusively excessive if it was not intended to cover also future rents.

In this connection, it also appears that on October 31, 1945, the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija decide the ejectment case in favor of the plaintiff; that on November 29, 1945, the motion for execution was filed, which was granted — as already noted — in the order of December 20, 1945; that the subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied on the ground that the cash deposit of P1,000 did not take the place of a supersedeas bond "first because it was not given as such, and second — the deposit was made before the decision the execution of which has been asked for." The first reason requires no other comment than that the attorney for the respondents herein now admits that said deposit "vino a constituir . . . la fianza de supersedeas." As to the second reason, it may be remarked that the cash bond of P1,000 filed before the rendition of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, continued to serve its purpose and effect thereafter, as may be inferred from section 9 of Rule 72 which provides that "where the defendant appeals from judgment of the Court of First Instance, execution of said judgment shall not be stayed unless the appellant pays either to the plaintiff or into the appellant court the same amounts referred to in the preceding section to be disposed of in the same manner as therein provided." Of course, the record does not show that the petitioner had duly appealed At the same time it is not here pretended by the respondents that the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija has become final and executory.

It result that we need not pass upon petitioner’s allegation that the order of execution of December 20, 1945, was issued without previous notice to him, although, of course, a writ of execution may only be issued by the court in ejectment cases after notice to the adverse party. (Section 8, Rule 72; Angel Jose Realty Corp. v. Galao, 76 Phil., 201.)

Moran, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, Briones and Tuason;, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions


PADILLA, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I dissent. This case can not yet be decided in view of the divergent allegations of the petitioner and the respondent Moreno as disclosed by their pleadings. Petitioner should not be allowed to withhold facts that must be laid before this court. He failed to append to his petition his answer filed in the respondent court, but in lieu thereof attached a copy of the judgment rendered by the justice of the peace of San Antonio, Nueva Ecija. The allegation in paragraph XI of his petition that the motion for execution filed by respondent Moreno on November 29, 1945, was without notice of hearing to petitioner and that it was filed before the determination of the case on the merits, is denied by respondent Moreno. The latter pleads that the motion was with notice of hearing and that it was filed after judgment on the merits had been rendered by the respondent court on October 31, 1945. This last allegation seems to be supported by the orders of December 20, 1945 and January 18, 1946 entered by the respondent court (Exhibits I and L). In paragraph XVI of the petition, it is alleged that the respondent court refused to allow petitioner to file a bond to answer for rentals due. This is denied by respondent Moreno.

I believe that the interest of justice would be best subserved by directing the respondent court to forward the record of the case for review by this court.

Nevertheless if, despite such divergent allegations, this court feels that it can decide the case, I would still dissent, because whether the case had been or has not been decided on the merits by the respondent court, the order of execution of December 20, 1945, was issued because of petitioner’s failure to pay the rentals at the rate of P65 a year from 1941 to 1945. The cash bond of P1,000 can not be deemed a compliance with petitioner’s obligation, during the pendency of the appeal, to pay to the plaintiff or into the court the rentals as they fall due, either under section 8 or under section 9, Rule 72, of the Rules of Court.

Hilado, J., concurs.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






August-1946 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-363 August 5, 1946 - GREGORIO K. KALAW v. IÑIGO S. DAZA, ET AL.

    077 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. L-183 August 6, 1946 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. JOSE RAMOS

    077 Phil 6

  • G.R. No. L-186 August 6, 1946 - HORACIO A. GUANZON, ET AL. v. ANG BAN, ET AL.

    077 Phil 11

  • G.R. No. L-302 August 7, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN DELGADO, ET AL.

    077 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. L-627 August 12, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONCEPCION FLORENDO

    077 Phil 18

  • G.R. No. L-402 August 14, 19461

    ESTER CRUZ, ET AL. v. FERNANDO JUGO, ET AL.

    077 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-177 August 16, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EPIFANIO E. ENOJO

    077 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. L-327 August 16, 1946 - MARIANO FLORES v. MARIANO NABLE, ET AL.

    077 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. L-700 August 16, 1946 - LUIS MENESES v. M. L. DE LA ROSA, ET AL.

    077 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. L-750 August 16, 1946 - JOAQUIN ZAMORA v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN

    077 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. L-439 August 20, 1946 - EDUARDO OCAMPO v. JOSE BERNABE, ET AL.

    077 Phil 67

  • G.R. No. L-533 August 20, 1946 - RAMON RUFFY ET AL. v. CHIEF OF STAFF

    075 Phil 875

  • G.R. No. L-49059 August 20, 1946 - ROQUE S. MONFORT v. EMILIO AGUINALDO, ET AL.

    077 Phil 70

  • G.R. No. L-235 August 21, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTELITO LUNGASA

    077 Phil 78

  • G.R. No. L-256 August 21, 1946 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FELIX MAGBANUA

    077 Phil 82

  • G.R. No. L-429 August 21, 1946 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FELIX MARQUEZ

    077 Phil 87

  • C.A. No. L-562 August 23, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO DE GOROSTIZA, ET AL.

    077 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. L-288 August 29, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISABELO NOBLE

    077 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. L-270 August 30, 1946 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. RESTITUTO BAUDEN

    077 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. L-277 August 30, 1946 - MANUEL BAGUIORO v. CONRADO BARRIOS, ET AL.

    077 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. L-697 August 30, 1946 - TOMAS MAPUA, ET AL. v. JOSE GUTIERREZ DAVID, ET AL.

    077 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. L-786 August 30, 1946 - BONIFACIO LOPEZ v. PABLO LOPEZ, ET AL.

    077 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. L-26 August 31, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL BAÑEZ, ET AL.

    077 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. L-353 August 31, 1946 - PACIENCIA DE JESUS v. IÑIGO S. DAZA, ET AL.

    077 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. L-362 August 31, 1946 - AMADO CALUAG DOMINGO v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF NUEVA ECIJA, ET AL.

    077 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. L-411 August 31, 1946 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. GENARO JAPITANA, ET AL.

    077 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. L-475 August 31, 1946 - ISAAC CAPAYAS v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ALBAY, ET AL.

    077 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. L-491 August 31, 1946 - SIMON IBAÑEZ v. CONRADO BARRIOS

    077 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. L-543 August 31, 1946 - JOSE O. VERA, ET AL. v. JOSE A. AVELINO, ET AL.

    077 Phil 365

  • G.R. No. 48321 August 31, 1946 - OH CHO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    075 Phil 890