Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1949 > November 1949 Decisions > G.R. No. L-2512 November 28, 1949 - BRAULIO, ET AL v. QUERUBE MAKALINTAL, ET AL

085 Phil 40:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-2512. November 28, 1949.]

BRAULIO, PERFECTO, GERARDO, DEOGRACIAS, all surnamed TAGULIMOT and DOLORES CAPITO, Petitioners, v. QUERUBE MAKALINTAL, in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance and PACIFICO TANANGUNAN, Respondent.

Ramon C. Tabiana and Valentina Camarines, for Petitioners.

Venancio C. Bañares for Respondent.

SYLLABUS


1. APPEALS; FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER; EFFECT OF APPEAL UPON JUDGMENT. — In ordinary civil cases, a perfect appeal shall operate to vacate the judgment of the justice of the peace, but Rule 72 sets out a particular procedure in detainer cases that may be deemed an exception to the general rule vacating appealed judgments.

2. ID.; ID.; TIME WITHIN WHICH TO FILE SUPERSEDEAS BOND; AT COURT’S DISCRETION. — Upon petition by the interested party, the Court of First Instance may in its discretion give a reasonable time within which to file a supersedeas bond or to replace a defective one and unless it is satisfactorily shown that there is abuse of discretion in the refusal of the court to grant the petition such denial does not constitute in itself unwarranted exercise of power.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.:


Special civil action to annul the orders of respondent judge of Iloilo province directing the issuance of execution in civil case No. 1251 of his court, wherein these petitioners are defendants in a forcible entry and detainer case coming from the justice of the peace court of Leon, Iloilo.

It appears that having appealed to the court of first instance from an adverse judgment in said litigation, these petitioners found themselves facing a motion for execution, upon the ground that they had failed to submit a bond to answer for the damages of P100 assessed against them in the decision of the justice of the peace court; that they objected to the motion arguing, in effect, that it was premature; that the respondent judge granted the motion on June 25, 1948 because "the defendants have not filed a supersedeas bond to stay execution pursuant to section 8, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court" ; that thereafter, on June 30, 1948, they filed a bond in the amount of one hundred pesos, which the respondent judge disapproved; that a motion to reconsider was denied on September 18, 1948.

Section 8, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court provides in part:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"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 down to the time of the final judgment in the action, and unless, during the pendency of the appeal, . . . Should the defendant fail to make the payments above prescribed from time to time during the pendency of the appeal, the Court of First Instance, upon motion of the plaintiff, of which the defendant shall have notice, and upon proof of such failure, shall order the execution of the judgment appealed from, but such execution shall not be a bar to the appeal taking its course until the final disposition thereof on its merits."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is the contention of petitioners that their duty, as defendants, to file the "sufficient bond" — called supersedeas bond — does not arise until the justice of the peace has issued a writ of execution, upon proper request. It is also their contention that the motion for execution may only be addressed to, and granted by, the justice of the peace court — and not by the court of first instance.

The first point is not supported by the wording of the above-quoted rule. It is furthermore contrary to the practice and procedure approved by this Court in several instances in which it has passed on similar questions. 1

The second point has likewise no merit. Undoubtedly the justice of the peace may issue execution "immediately" after the judgment. (Pascua v. Nable, 2 40 Off. Gaz., 10th Suppl., 132.) But after the perfection of the appeal it is clear that the jurisdiction over the controversy has passed to the court of first instance. Hence motions submitted to that court and granted or acted upon by it under similar circumstances have not been questioned here. 3

Although in ordinary civil cases "a perfected appeal shall operate to vacate the judgment of the justice of the peace" (sec. 9, Rule 40) Rule 72 sets out a particular procedure in actions on forcible entry and detainer cases and the consequences of an appeal to the court of first instance. It may be deemed an exception to the general rule vacating appealed judgments.

It is true, as urged by petitioners, we have held that the court of first instance may in its discretion give the interested party a reasonable time within which to file a supersedeas bond or to replace a defective one. 4 But no petition for such time was made to the judge. And we have not held that refusal of the court to grant time constitutes in itself unwarranted exercise of power. He has discretion to grant or to deny. In this instance we are not satisfied that, under the circumstances, the petitioners successfully sustained the burden of showing abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent judicial officer.

Wherefore, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is denied, with costs. So ordered.

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes, and Torres, JJ., concur.

Paras, J., concurs in the result.

Endnotes:



1. Felipe v. Teodoro, 46 Phil., 409; Igama v. Soria, 42 Phil., 11; Tomboc v. Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, 46 Phil., 851; Domingo v. Flordeliza, 37 Phil., 694.

2. 71 Phil., 186.

3. Sumintac v. Court of First Instance, 71 Phil., 445, 16; Tolentino v. Court of First Instance, 75 Phil., 282; and see cases in note (1). See general, Moran Rules of Court, Vol. II, pp. 258-261.

4. Tolentino v. Court of First Instance, 75 Phil., 282; Zamora v. Dinglasan, 43 Off. Gaz., 1627.




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





November-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1628 November 9, 1949 - ADRIANO MENDOZA v. FRANCISCA DE GUIA

    084 Phil 873

  • G.R. No. L-2367 November 11, 1949 - FELICIANO AUREUS v. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE & COMMERCE

    085 Phil 1

  • G.R. Nos. L-1871 & L-1872 November 18, 1949 - ICE & COLD STORAGE INDUSTRIES OF THE PHIL., INC. v. JOSE M. VALERO, ET AL.

    085 Phil 7

  • G.R. No. L-2606 November 19, 1949 - LORENZO SALVADOR v. JOSE B. L. REYES, ET AL.

    085 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. L-3393 November 23, 1949 - GERVASIO ERAÑA v. ERMELO VERGEL DE DIOS

    085 Phil 17

  • G.R. No. L-1822 November 28, 1949 - MARVEL BUILDING CORP. v. PHIL. WAR DAMAGE COM.

    085 Phil 27

  • G.R. No. L-1862 November 28, 1949 - ENGRACIO DE ASIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

    085 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. L-1897 November 28, 1949 - JOSE DE BORJA v. DEOGRACIAS V. VILLADOLID

    085 Phil 36

  • G.R. No. L-2512 November 28, 1949 - BRAULIO, ET AL v. QUERUBE MAKALINTAL, ET AL

    085 Phil 40

  • G.R. No. L-1372 November 29, 1949 - ALIPIO VILLONES, ET AL v. MARIANO NABLE, ET AL

    085 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. L-1496 November 29, 1949 - COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHIL. v. CAYETANO DE BORJA

    085 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. L-1538 November 29, 1949 - ENGRACIO DE ASIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    085 Phil 59

  • G.R. No. L-1580 November 29, 1949 - RAMON MARTINEZ v. JACINTO NOTOR

    085 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. L-2075 November 29, 1949 - MARGARITA AFIALDA v. BASILIO HISOLE, ET AL

    085 Phil 67

  • G.R. No. L-2813 November 29, 1949 - FELIZA ARAGON v. RAFAEL AMPARO, ET AL

    085 Phil 70

  • G.R. No. L-3041 November 29, 1949 - P. M. SILVA v. HIGINIO B. MACADAEG, ET AL

    085 Phil 74