ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 117667.
INLAND TRAILWAYS, INC., Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ROBERTO L. MAKALINTAL, REYNALDO T. NEPOMUCENO and SOLAR RESOURCES, INC., Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:
On
On
Thereafter, private respondent filed a Motion for Immediate Execution of the decision with the MTC based on Section 8, Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Due to petitioners failure to post the required supersedeas bond
to stay execution of the ejectment decision, the MTC issued a Writ of Execution
on
On
On
On
In essence, the petitioner vehemently maintains that the MTC
acted without jurisdiction when it issued the subject Writ of Execution on
Private respondent contends otherwise. According to the private
respondent, the motion for execution was filed with the MTC on
We sustain the private respondent in the circumstances.
Apparently, the sole issue presented before us is:
What is the true date of filing of the motion for execution with
the MTC?
Is it
This is indubitably a pure issue of fact. It is settled that pure questions of fact may not be the proper subject of an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. This mode of appeal is generally limited only to questions of law which must be distinctly set forth in the petition, 5 subject only to a few well-defined exceptions not present in the case at bench.
Verily, both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals, before
whom the same question was earlier raised by the petitioner, were unanimous in
finding that the Motion for Execution was actually filed with the MTC on
"x x x The Motion for Execution was actually filed on
We see no circumstance to disturb this factual finding of the appellate court. We have consistently and emphatically declared that review of the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals is not a function that this Court normally undertakes inasmuch as such findings, as a rule, are binding and conclusive. 6cräläwvirtualibräry
Furthermore, the failure of the petitioner to file with the MTC a supersedeas bond to stay execution. pursuant to Section 8 of Rule 70 rendered the issuance of a Writ of Execution by the MTC not only proper but also unavoidable. Section 8 of Rule 70 on Forcible Entry and Detainer reads:
"Section 8. Immediate execution of judgment. How to stay same. - If judgment is rendered against the defendant, execution shall issue immediately, unless an appeal has been perfected and the defendant to stay execution files a sufficient bond, approved by the justice of the peace or municipal court and executed to the plaintiff to enter the action in the Court of First Instance and to pay the rents, damages, and costs accruing down to the time of the judgment appealed from, and unless, during the pendency of the appeal, he deposits with the appellate court 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 exist. In the absence of a contract, he shall deposit with the court the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the premises for the preceding month or period at the rate determined by the judgment, on or before the tenth day of each succeeding month or period. The supersedeas bond shall be transmitted by the justice of the peace or municipal court, with the other papers, to the clerk of the Court of First Instance to which the action is appealed. x x x"
The requirement for the filing of a supersedeas bond is mandatory and so, if the bond is not filed, the execution of the judgment is a ministerial duty of the court. 7 This rule was reiterated in our recent pronouncement in San Pedro vs. Court of Appeals 8 where we held that:
"Judgments in ejectment cases which are favorable to the plaintiff are immediately executory. They can be stayed by the defendant only by: a) perfecting an appeal; b) filing a supersedeas bond; and c) making a periodic deposit of the rental or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the property during the pendency of the appeal. These requisites must concur."
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED and the Decision
of the Court of Appeals dated
Cost against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Padilla (Chairman), Bellosillo, Vitug, and Kapunan, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1 Docketed as Civil Case No. 8778.
2 Docketed as Civil Case No. 94-0089.
3 Docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 34992.
4 Annex "C"; Rollo, pp. 36-37.
5 Section 2; Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court.
6 De Ia Serna v. Court of Appeals, 233 SCRA 325 [1994] citing Constantino v. Mendez, 209 SCRA 18; Alitalia Airways v. Court of Appeals, 187 SCRA 763; Remalante v. Tibe, et at., 158 SCRA 138; Korean Airlines, Co., Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, 154 SCRA 213; Pan Amerian World Airways, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 153 SCRA 521, Hernandez v. Court of Appeals, et al., 149 SCRA 97; Collector of Customs of Manila v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 137 SCRA 3.
7 Regalado, Florenz D., Remedial Law Compendium, Volume 1, Fifth Revised Edition, pp. 518-519 citing Fuentes v. Bautista, et al., L-31351, October 26, 1973.
8 235 SCRA 145 [1994].