Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1948 > February 1948 Decisions > G.R. No. L-1651 February 17, 1948 - AGAPITO B. ANDAL v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

080 Phil 236:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-1651. February 17, 1948.]

AGAPITO B. ANDAL, Petitioner, v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN, Judge of First Instance of Rizal, THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL, CONSUELO ROXAS and SALVADOR GOMEZ, Respondents.

V. H. Endaya for Petitioner.

Ramirez & Ortigas for Respondents.

SYLLABUS


EJECTMENT; EXECUTION; SUSPENSION OF; CONDITION FOR SUSPENSION. — Under section 6 of Act No. 689, the order suspending execution of an order or judgment of ejectment "shall be granted and will continue in force only on condition that the person against whom judgment has been rendered deposits the total amount of rents due during the period of suspension or such portions of said amount as the court may order from time to time, at the same rate of rental that he was charged for the month immediately preceding the expiration of the lease. This deposit shall include, in addition, the costs and all rents due and not paid before the suspension and a reasonable amount to answer for damages."


D E C I S I O N


TUASON, J.:


This is a petition for certiorari to annul two orders of the Court of First Instance of Rizal relative to the execution of a final judgment entered in an action for unlawful detainer of a city lot situated in Rizal City (Pasay). One of the orders, dated August 14, 1947 and issued by Judge Eulalio Garcia, allowed the petitioner herein and defendant in the above-mentioned case, a grace of "not exceeding six months, counted from the date of the filing of the petition for suspension, July 8, 1947, on condition that the defendant deposits with this court, in advance, all the rents due during the period of suspension, at the rate of P160 a month, plus the costs in the amount of P52.24 adjudged in favor of the plaintiffs and the further amount of P200 to answer for damages." The other order was issued by Judge Bienvenido A. Tan on August 23, 1947, denying the execution debtor’s motion for reconsideration of Judge Garcia’s order and enjoining, besides, "bajo pena de desacato, el estricto cumplimiento de la orden de fecha 14 de agosto de 1947." Judge Tan added: "Apareciendo igualmente en el record que la fianza prestada por el demandado no es suficiente para cubrir los alquileres vencidos, el Juzgado ordena a dicho demandado que deposite o pagar directamente al demandante, la cantidad correspondiente a los alquileres vencidos hasta la fecha dentro del plazo de 10 dias, a contar desde la fecha en que reciba copia de esta orden."cralaw virtua1aw library

The judgment was rendered as early as November 20, 1946, a judgment appeal from which by the defendant, petitioner herein, was dismissed by the Court of Appeals for having been filed out of time. The suspension of execution for six months was granted, "in the interest of justice and equity", upon the defendant’s own motion, although, at best, the case did not clearly fall within the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 689 as the defendant’s house on the lot in question was partly rented out and partly used for commercial purposes.

The objection of the defendant was directed solely against that part of each of the two orders concerning the deposit and the manner of payment of rents during the period of suspension. The prayer was to amend these orders "so as to eliminate therefrom the requirement for the defendant to deposit the sum of P200 for damages, and so as to merely require said defendant to pay the plaintiffs the rents corresponding to the period of the suspension within the first ten (10) days of the months to which they respectively correspond."cralaw virtua1aw library

As the respondents’ counsel anticipated in their memorandum filed on November 10, 1947, this case had then, for all practical purposes, become moot. Now it is absolutely so. The time consumed for the case to reach its turn on the calendar of hearings and for deliberation has already exceeded six months, thus enabling the petitioner to escape compliance with the conditions imposed by the respondent judge and his predecessor and assailed by the petitioner. The period of six months commenced on July 8, 1947, and ended on January 8, 1948.

There would seem, therefore, no necessity of deciding the questions raised in the petition. However, lest our failure to dispose of these questions might serve as a new ground for a motion for reconsideration and be the cause of further delay in the execution, now long overdue, of the judgment, we shall express our opinion on the matter: We do not construe the orders as an abuse of discretion. They are in substantial, almost in literal accord with the applicable provisions. Section 5 of Commonwealth Act No. 689, as amended by Republic Act No. 66, empowers the court to suspend execution of an order or judgment "on the condition that the requirements laid down for said suspension shall be complied with;" and section 6 of Act No. 689 expressly provides that "The order of suspension shall be granted and will continue in force only on condition that the person against whom judgment has been rendered deposits the total amount of rents due during the period of suspension or such portions of said amount as the Court may order from time to time, at the same rate of rental that he was charged for the month immediately preceding the expiration of the lease. This deposit shall include, in addition, the costs and all rents due and not paid before the suspension and a reasonable amount to answer for damages."cralaw virtua1aw library

The petitioner in his memorandum touches on the merits of the case, going to the extreme of contending that the decision should be modified so as to reduce the monthly rent to P96. This contention is out of order. The judgment is no longer open to attack and is not put in issue by the petition.

The petition is denied and dismissed with costs against the petitioner.

Paras, Perfecto, Hilado and Briones, JJ., concur.




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






February-1948 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1782 February 2, 1948 - FIDEL B. FORTUNATO v. THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    080 Phil 187

  • G.R. No. L-725 February 3, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FRANCISCO APARATO

    080 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. L-869 February 9, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PASTOR TAN MATEO, ET AL.

    080 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. L-1357 February 9, 1948 - MARIANO R. LACSON v. C. N. HODGES, ET AL.

    080 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. L-1788 February 9, 1948 - MATIAS NAREDO v. NICASIO YATCO

    080 Phil 220

  • G.R. No. L-1808 February 14, 1948 - FAUSTINO FULGENCIO v. FELIPE NATIVIDAD

    080 Phil 224

  • G.R. No. L-1313 February 16, 1948 - ROSALINA CUNANAN v. RAFAEL AMPARO

    080 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. L-1424 February 17, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FERNANDO CARPIZO

    080 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. L-1651 February 17, 1948 - AGAPITO B. ANDAL v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    080 Phil 236

  • R-Civil No. 1740 February 18, 1948 - FELISA R. DE VICTORIO v. JACOB VOLZ

    080 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-1273 February 19, 1948 - JOSE F. SINGSON v. VICENTE Q. QUINTILLAN, ET AL.

    080 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. L-1636 February 24, 1948 - VICENTE MADRIGAL v. SOTERO RODAS

    080 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. L-1692 February 24, 1948 - AMADO SOROÑGON, ET AL. v. QUERUBE MAKALINTAL

    080 Phil 259

  • G.R. No. L-1988 February 24, 1948 - JESUS MIQUIABAS v. COMMANDING GENERAL

    080 Phil 262

  • G.R. No. 48411 February 24, 1948 - ELKS CLUB v. LEOPOLDO ROVIRA

    080 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. L-538 February 25, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MAURICIO OLAVIDES ET AL.

    080 Phil 280

  • G.R. No. L-1806 February 25, 1948 - ALFONSO PAGKALINAWAN, ET AL. v. SOTERO RODAS

    080 Phil 281

  • G.R. Nos. L-683 & L-684 February 26, 1940

    EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ANASTACIO IMSON, ET AL.

    080 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. L-1612 February 26, 1948 - JORGE B. VARGAS v. EMILIO RILLORAZA

    080 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. L-1828 February 26, 1948 - JOSE SILVESTRE v. CONRADO SANCHEZ

    080 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. L-1247 February 27, 1948 - HOSPICIA BLAY, ET AL. v. BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

    080 Phil 373

  • G.R. No. L-1317 February 27, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ABRAHAM LOGO

    080 Phil 377

  • G.R. No. L-1566 February 27, 1948 - CIPRIANO OLAVIANO v. PRIMITIVO ORIELL

    080 Phil 379

  • G.R. No. L-1631 February 27, 1948 - ABELARDO SUBIDO v. ROMAN OZAETA

    080 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. L-1853 February 27, 1948 - GRACIANO SITCHON, ET AL. v. THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF OCCIDENTAL NEGROS, ET AL.

    080 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. L-1870 February 27, 1948 - ANTONIO C. OGNIR v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    080 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. L-1128 February 28, 1948 - GERARDO M. ALFONSO v. NICASIO YATCO

    080 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. L-1719 February , 28, 1948 - CANUTO VALIENTE v. JUEZ DEL JUZGADO DE PRIMERA INSTANCIA DE TARLAC

    080 Phil 415