ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
April-1955 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-7065 April 13, 1955 - TEOFILA S. TIBON v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    096 Phil 786

  • G.R. No. L-7784 April 13, 1955 - NICOLAS ADANTE v. CANDIDO DAGPIN

    096 Phil 789

  • G.R. No. L-7904 April 14, 1955 - EDUARDO HILVANO v. FIDEL FERNANDEZ

    096 Phil 791

  • G.R. No. L-7851 April 15, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HONORABLE JOSE P. VELUZ

    096 Phil 794

  • G.R. No. L-8183 April 15, 1955 - VICTOR DE LA CRUZ v. HONORABLE AMBROSIO T. DOLLETE

    096 Phil 797

  • G.R. No. L-8316 April 15, 1955 - LUZON STEVEDORING CO. v. THE HONORABLE CESAREO DE LEON

    096 Phil 801

  • G.R. No. L-7094 April 16, 1955 - JUANITA MIRANDA v. HON. JUDGE DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION

    096 Phil 805

  • G.R. No. L-7791 April 19, 1955 - LEE TAY & LEE CHAY v. KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA KAHOY SA FILIPINAS

    096 Phil 808

  • G.R. No. L-6871 April 20, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BANDALI TAGACAOLO

    096 Phil 812

  • G.R. No. L-7301 April 20, 1955 - TIU SAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. ET AL.

    096 Phil 817

  • G.R. No. L-7318 April 20, 1955 - HELEN GENIO DE CHAVEZ v. A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO.

    096 Phil 823

  • G.R. No. L-6508 April 25, 1955 - KOPPEL (PHIL) INC. v. EL TRIBUNAL DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    096 Phil 830

  • G.R. No. L-7076 April 28, 1955 - ROSARIO and UNTALAN v. CARANDANG ET AL.

    096 Phil 845

  • G.R. No. L-6469 April 29, 1955 - NAVARRA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL and COURT OF APPEALS

    096 Phil 851

  • G.R. No. L-6740 April 29, 1955 - DIMAYUGA v. DIMAYUGA

    096 Phil 859

  • G.R. No. L-6752 April 29, 1955 - NAZARIO TRILLANA v. FAUSTINO MANANSALA

    096 Phil 865

  • G.R. No. L-6972 April 29, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO SATURNINO

    096 Phil 868

  • G.R. No. L-7054 April 29, 1955 - UY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    096 Phil 871

  • G.R. No. L-7541 April 29, 1955 - VISAYAN SURETY & INS. CORP. v. LACSON ET AL.

    096 Phil 878

  • G.R. No. L-7550 April 29, 1955 - DONALD A. ROCCO v. MORTON MEADS

    096 Phil 884

  • G.R. No. L-7623 April 29, 1955 - FELICIDAD CASTAÑEDA v. BRUNA PESTAÑO

    096 Phil 890

  • G.R. No. L-7692 April 29, 1955 - PEOPLE’S BANK & TRUST CO., v. HONORABLE RAMON R. SAN JOSE

    096 Phil 895

  • G.R. No. L-8107 April 29, 1955 - VISAYAN SURETY & INS. CORP. v. HON. DE AQUINO ET AL.

    096 Phil 900

  • G.R. No. L-8348 April 29, 1955 - BAGTAS v. EL TRIBUNAL DE APELACION

    096 Phil 905

  • G.R. No. L-6931 April 30, 1955 - STANDARD-VACUUM OIL COMPANY v. M. D. ANTIGUA

    096 Phil 909

  • G.R. No. L-7236 April 30, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. Po GIOK TO

    096 Phil 913

  • G.R. No. L-7296 April 30, 1955 - PLASLU v. PORTLAND CEMENT CO., ET AL.

    096 Phil 920

  • G.R. No. L-7390 April 30, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYES, ET AL.

    096 Phil 927

  • G.R. No. L-7561 April 30, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAAC, ET AL.

    096 Phil 931

  • G.R. No. L-7680 April 30, 1955 - TAN TONG v. DEPORTATION BOARD

    096 Phil 934

  • G.R. No. L-7830 Abril 30, 1955 - MANZA v. HON. VICENTE SANTIAGO, ET AL.

    096 Phil 938

  • G.R. No. L-8017 April 30, 1955 - MANSAL v. P. P. GOCHECO LUMBER CO.

    096 Phil 941

  • G.R. No. L-8278 April 30, 1955 - SUMAIL v. HON. JUDGE OF THE CFI OF COTABATO, ET AL

    096 Phil 946

  • G.R. No. L-8332 April 30, 1955 - JESUS S. RODRIGUEZ v. FRANCISCO A. ARELLANO

    096 Phil 954

  • G.R. No. L-8909 Abril 30, 1955 - JOSE LAANAN v. EL ALCAIDE PROVINCIAL DE RIZAL

    096 Phil 959

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-8183   April 15, 1955 - VICTOR DE LA CRUZ v. HONORABLE AMBROSIO T. DOLLETE<br /><br />096 Phil 797

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-8183. April 15, 1955.]

    VICTOR DE LA CRUZ, Petitioner, v. HONORABLE AMBROSIO T. DOLLETE, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Bataan, and LEONARDO QUESADA, ET AL., Respondents.

    Filoteo T. Banzon for Petitioner.

    Amado B. Reyes and Pedro R. Dizon for Respondents.


    SYLLABUS


    1. ILLEGAL DETAINER; IMMEDIATE EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL; WHERE RENTAL FIXED IN JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM IS ON A YEARLY BASIS, NOT MONTHLY. — The rule regarding immediate execution of a judgment in a detainer case is governed by section 8 of Rule 72. This section contemplates payment of a monthly rental the failure of which would give rise to execution, and not the payment of rental in any other manner. In the present case, the rental fixed by the justice of the peace court is not monthly but yearly, and this is understandable considering the fact that the property subject of lease is a fishpond. The court can take judicial notice that fishpond is operated on a yearly basis because by its very nature the harvest accrues only once a year with rare exceptions and generally the rental, is computed on a yearly basis. Such being the case, section 8 of Rule 72 cannot be invoked as basis for the execution of the judgment of the justice of the peace court. As the rental fixed by the court is not yet due, the order of execution issued by it is, therefore, premature.

    2. ID.; ID.; APPELLATE COURT CANNOT, IN ADVANCE, MODIFY AMOUNT OF PERIODICAL DEPOSITS. — In the absence of a contract, the amount of the periodical deposits to be made by an appellant under section 8 of Rule 72 must be determined in the judgment appealed from, and the appellate court cannot, in advance of hearing upon the merits, virtually modify that judgment by adding to it a provision fixing the amount of such deposits. (Felipe v. Teodoro, 46 Phil., 409; See also Perez v. Revilla, 46 Phil., 56.)


    D E C I S I O N


    BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


    This is a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction wherein petitioner seeks to nullify the order of execution issued by respondent judge on July 21, 1954 and, in the meantime, to enjoin him from enforcing said order. The petition for preliminary injunction was granted upon petitioner’s filing a bond in the amount of P1,000.

    On February 15, 1954, the Justice of the Peace Court of Balanga, Bataan rendered a decision ordering Victor de la Cruz, petitioner herein, to vacate and relinquish the fishpond in litigation and to deliver the same to Leonard Quesada, Et Al., respondents herein, and, among other things, to pay the latter the sum of P2,750 per annum as rental from January 10, 1954 up to the time the fishpond shall have been delivered to said respondents. From this decision petitioner appealed to the Court of First Instance of Bataan and deposited with the clerk of court the sum of P912 by way of supersedeas bond to stay execution pending appeal. On June 14, 1954, respondent filed a motion for immediate execution of the decision on the ground that petitioner failed to deposit the rentals that had accrued on the basis of P229.17 per month, and on June 18, 1954 petitioner filed a written opposition contending that the rental fixed by the justice of the peace court is P2,750 per annum and the court cannot modify that rate by dividing it into a monthly rental of P229.17 as claimed by respondents. The court overruled this opposition and granted the motion in an order issued on July 21, 1954. His motion for reconsideration having been denied, petitioner interposed the present petition for certiorari.

    The rule regarding immediate execution of a judgment in a detainer case is governed by section 8, Rule 72, of the Rules of Court. Said section in part provides that "If the judgment is rendered against the defendant, execution shall issue immediately, unless an appeal has been perfected and the defendant to stay execution . . . pays to the plaintiff or to the Court of First Instance the amount of rent due from time to time under the contract, if any, as found by the judgment of the justice of the peace or municipal court to exists, or, in the absence of a contract, he pays to the plaintiff or into the court, on or before the tenth day of each calendar month, the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the premises for the preceding month at the rate determined by the judgment." From this rule it appears clear that the immediate execution of the judgment can only be demanded if the defendant fails to pay "on or before the tenth day of each calendar month, the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the premises for the preceding month at the rate determined by the judgment." This rule contemplates payment of a monthly rental the failure of which would give rise to execution, and not the payment of rental in any other manner. In the present case, the rental fixed by the justice of the peace court is not monthly but yearly, and this is understandable considering the fact that the property subject of lease is a fishpond. The court can take judicial notice that fishpond is operated on a yearly basis because by its very nature the harvest accrues only once a year with rare exceptions and generally the rental is computed on a yearly basis. It is for this reason that the justice of the peace court fixed a rental of P2,750 a year as the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the fishpond in litigation. Such being the case, it is our opinion that section 8, Rule 72 cannot be invoked as basis for the execution of the judgment of the justice of the peace court. As it now appears the rental fixed by the court is not yet due and, therefore, the order of execution issued by the respondent judge is premature.

    It is true that respondents plaintiffs may desire to protect their interest by preventing any damage that may be caused to them because of their failure to possess the property during the pendency of the appeal taken by petitioner in the detainer case, but while this desire is legitimate and is not without justification, we believe that their remedy is not what they had availed of but elsewhere. Our remedial law affords more than one way by which this possible damage or injury to them can be averted. But, as this Court has aptly said, "In the absence of a contract, the amount of the periodical deposits to be made by an appellant under section 88, must be determined in the judgment of the justice of the peace, who has original jurisdiction of the case, and the Court of First Instance cannot, in advance of the trial upon its merits, virtually modify that judgment by adding to it a provision fixing the amount of such deposits." (Felipe v. Teodoro, 46 Phil., 409; See also Perez v. Revilla, 46 Phil., 56.) (Italics supplied.)

    Wherefore, the petition is granted, with costs against respondents-plaintiffs.

    Pablo, Acting C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Concepcion, and Reyes, J. B. L., JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-8183   April 15, 1955 - VICTOR DE LA CRUZ v. HONORABLE AMBROSIO T. DOLLETE<br /><br />096 Phil 797


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED