Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1924 > October 1924 Decisions > G.R. No. 22770 October 11, 1924 - RAYNUNFO FELIPE, ET AL. v. ANASTASIO TEODORO, ET AL.

046 Phil 409:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 22770. October 11, 1924. ]

RAYNUNFO FELIPE and ANGELINA DAGURO, Petitioners, v. ANASTASIO TEODORO, Judge of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, ET AL., Respondents.

Iñigo R. Bitanga, for Petitioners.

Vicente Llanes for Respondents.

No appearance for the respondent judge.

SYLLABUS


1. FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER; APPEAL EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT FOR POSSESSION OF THE LAND BEFORE FINAL JUDGMENT ON APPEAL. — In a forcible entry and detainer case the justice of the peace rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the possession of the land and for the return of a quantity of palay or its value, amounting to P580. On appeal to the Court of First Instance the defendant appellant failed to give the special bond for damages required by section 88 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Before trial on the merits in the Court of First Instance, that court on motion by the plaintiff, issued an order fixing the monthly rental of the land at P48.33 in addition to the damages awarded by the justice of the peace. Held: That, the fixing of the rental value of the land amounted to an amendment of the judgment of the justice of the peace and that having been made in advance of the trial upon the merits, was in excess of the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance.

2. ID.; ID.; SPECIAL BOND. — Failure to give the special bond for rents and damages required by section 88 of the Code of Civil Procedure deprives the appellant of the right to a stay of execution of the judgment of the justice of the peace so far as the restitution of the possession of the land is concerned.


D E C I S I O N


OSTRAND, J. :


It appears from the record of the present case that the respondents Agustin Balisacan, Patricio Abes and Domingo Rasalan brought an action of forcible entry and detainer in the court of the justice of the peace of the municipality of Solsona, Province of Ilocos Norte, against the herein petitioners and obtained a judgment for the possession of the land in litigation and for the return of 20 uyones of palay or the value of the same amounting to P580.

In an anticipation of an appeal by the defendants, the plaintiffs in the forcible entry and detainer case, the herein respondents, presented a motion to the justice of the peace praying that he amend his judgment by adding to it a clause fixing the monthly rental value of the land, but the motion was denied by the court on the ground that the action was one of despojo and not of desahucio, and that the land had no special monthly rental value.

The defendants thereupon perfected an appeal to the Court of First Instance in accordance with section 76 of the Code of Civil Procedure and gave the appeal bond there prescribed, but failed to give the special bond for rents, damages and costs required by section 88 of the same Code for a stay of execution.

After the case had been entered upon the docket in the Court of First Instance, but before trial, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking that the monthly rental value of the land be determined and that the defendants be required to make monthly deposits with the court of the amount of the rental value so found. Subsequently the plaintiffs filed another motion asking that the defendants be ordered to give the special bond for rents and damages required by section 88 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In an order dated June 17, 1924, the respondent judge granted both motions fixing the amount of the monthly rental value of the land at P48.83 and the amount of the special bond for damages in the sum of P580. The defendants thereupon presented a motion for the reconsideration of this order and upon the denial of the motion brought the present proceeding for a writ of certiorari, praying that the Court of First Instance be ordered to certify to this court the record of the action of forcible entry and detainer and that thereupon the order of June 17, 1924, be declared null and void and in excess of the jurisdiction of the court from which it issued.

We agree with the petitioners that the Judge of the Court of First Instance exceeded his jurisdiction in undertaking to fix the amount to be deposited monthly with the Court of First Instance for the use and occupation of the land by the defendants. 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.

It is obvious, however, that the issuance of a writ of certiorari on that ground in the present case will be futile. The failure of the appellants from the judgment of the justice of the peace to give the special bond required by section 88, supra, for rents and damages, prevents a stay of execution of the judgment as far as the restitution to the appellees of the possession of the land is concerned. The fact that the Court of First Instance in its order of June 17th required the appellants to file the special bond in nowise altered the previously existing situation; by operation of law, the appellees were entitled to the immediate execution of the judgment for possession and did not need the order of June 17th to accomplish that purpose.

The petition is denied with the costs against the petitioners. So ordered.

Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Avanceña, Villamor, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





October-1924 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-22545 October 1, 1924 - BENITA QUIOGE DE V. DEL ROSARIO v. HON. MIGUEL ROMUALDEZ

    046 Phil 337

  • G.R. No. 22547 October 1, 1924 - EPIFANIO ATIENZA WEE CHUCO v. CIRILA MOLINA

    048 Phil 986

  • G.R. No. 21821 October 2, 1924 - WISE and CO. v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    049 Phil 966

  • G.R. No. L-21644 October 2, 1924 - PUA CASIM & CO. v. W. NEUMARK & CO.

    046 Phil 342

  • G.R. No. L-21881 October 3, 1924 - E. MACIAS & CO. v. CHINA FIRE INS. & CO., LTD., ET AL.

    046 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. L-21572 October 4, 1924 - MARCELA LLENARES v. FELISA VALDEAVELLA, ET AL.

    046 Phil 358

  • G.R. No. L-21921 October 4, 1924 - ATKINS, ET AL. v. SANTIAGO DOMINGO

    046 Phil 362

  • G.R. No. L-22383 October 6, 1924 - PNB v. MARGARITA Y. QUINTOS, ET AL

    046 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. L-22366 October 7, 1924 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. EUSTAQUIO JOSON, ET AL.

    046 Phil 380



  • G.R. Nos. 21377 & 21659 October 8, 1924 - MATILDE MAGDAÑGAL v. CRISANTO LICHAUCO, ET AL.

    051 Phil 894


  • G.R. No. 22071 October 9, 1924 - HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION v. VICENTE ALDANESE

    048 Phil 990

  • G.R. No. L-21649 October 9, 1924 - SALMON, ET AL. v. NICOLAS WIJANGCO

    046 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. L-22702 October 9, 1924 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. VICENTE LAOTA

    046 Phil 392

  • G.R. No. L-22345 October 10, 1924 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. FELIPE DIÑO, ET AL.

    046 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. L-22807 October 10, 1924 - GREGORIO R. SY-QUIA v. SHERIFF OF ILOCOS SUR, ET AL.

    046 Phil 400



  • G.R. No. 22390 October 11, 1924 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL J. OSSORIO

    050 Phil 864


  • G.R. No. 22061 October 11, 1924 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. CRISTOBAL FRANCISCO

    046 Phil 403

  • G.R. No. 22667 October 11, 1924 - GETULIO ALMAREZ, ET AL. v. MARIANO FLORENTINO

    046 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. 22770 October 11, 1924 - RAYNUNFO FELIPE, ET AL. v. ANASTASIO TEODORO, ET AL.

    046 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 22318 October 15, 1924 - METROPOLITAN WATER DIST. v. PUBLIC UTILITY COM.

    046 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. 22134 October 17, 1924 - MARIANO UY CHACO SONS & CO. v. ADMIRAL LINE

    046 Phil 418



  • G.R. No. 21549 October 22, 1924 - TEODORO VEGA v. SAN CARLOS MILLING CO., LTD.

    051 Phil 908


  • G.R. Nos. 21991 & 21992 October 31, 1924 - CHARLES ABOLAFIA v. LIVERPOOL AND LONDON AND GLOBE INS. CO., LTD., ET AL.

    046 Phil 424

  • G.R. No. L-22906 October 31, 1924 - EDILBERTO R. BORJA v. FELIPE AGONCILLO, ET AL.

    046 Phil 432