Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1951 > July 1951 Decisions > G.R. No. L-4583 July 30, 1951 - CONCHITA COINCO v. RAMON R. SAN JOSE

089 Phil 578:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-4583. July 30, 1951.]

CONCHITA COINCO, Petitioner, v. RAMON R. SAN JOSE Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila JUANITA IGNACIO and LEON CASTILLO, Respondents.

Tesoro & Cruz for Petitioner.

SYLLABUS


EXECUTION; ILLEGAL DETAINER; PAYMENT OF RENTS DUE AFTER NOTICE OF MOTION FOR EXECUTION DOES NOT EXCUSE THE GRANT OF WRIT. — The ruling in Santos v. Alvarez (44 Off. Gaz. [No. 11], 4259), that under Commonwealth Act No. 689, as amended by Republic Act No. 66, failure of the defendant-appellant in a case illegal detainer to make on time periodical deposits or payment of the rents adjudged by the inferior court during the pendency of his appeal to the Court of First Instance, is not ground for execution unless it be shown that the failure was deliberate or intentional, was good only during four years from October 13, 1945, to October 14, 1949, in which said acts were in force (Estrada v. Caseda, 47 Off. Gaz., 1815). Payment or deposit by the defendant-appellant in a case of illegal detainer of the rents due, made after notice of a motion for execution had been served upon him by the plaintiff-appellee, cannot be accepted as an excuse for not ordering the execution of the judgment (Carbungco v. Amparo, 46 Off. Gaz., Supp. to No. 11, p. 91).


D E C I S I O N


FERIA, J.:


This is a petition for mandamus against Judge Ramon San Jose of the Court of First Instance of Manila praying that said respondents be ordered to order the execution of the judgment rendered by him against the other respondents, because of failure of the latter, during the pendency of the defendants’ appeal to said Court of First Instance, to pay to the petitioner or deposit with the court the rents adjudged by the Municipal Court.

The essential facts alleged under oath in his petition by the petitioner, and not denied by the respondents who failed to answer the petition, are the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on June 22, 1949, your petitioner filed a civil complaint for ejectment against the respondents Juanita Ignacio and Leon Castillo in the Municipal Court of Manila, which case was docketed in said court as Civil Case No. 7988.

"That the said case was duly tried in the aforementioned municipal court, and, on August 18, 1949, a decision was rendered ordering the herein respondents Juanita Ignacio and Leon Castillo to vacate the premises in question, and to pay your petitioner a monthly rental of P15 a month until said respondents shall vacate the premises in question.

"That respondents, Juanita Ignacio and Leon Castillo perfected their appeal from the aforementioned decision, and the record of the said case had been duly transmitted to the Court of First Instance of Manila, where it is now pending appeal, is docketed as civil case No. 9065.

"That respondents Juanita Ignacio and Leon Castillo failed to pay, either to your petitioner or to the court the rentals for the months of June 1950 to December, 1950, notwithstanding the lapse of the period allowed for said payment by Rule 72, section 8 of the Rules of Court.

"That on December 19, 1950, your petitioner filed a motion for execution of the judgment appealed from on the ground of the aforementioned failure of respondents, Juanita and Leon Castillo to pay rentals within the reglementary period.

"That, after due notice to the respondents Juanita Ignacio and Leon Castillo, said motion was heard by respondents, Judge Ramon R. San Jose, and, in the said hearing respondents Juanita Ignacio and Leon Castillo, admitted not having paid the rentals aforementioned, having deposited only the amount of P120.60 on December 20, 1950, after the service of motion for execution was served, but objected to the motion, and presented arguments which were absolutely without legal basis.

"That, on January 16, 1951, the respondent Judge Ramon R. San Jose promulgated an order, copy of which was received on January 19, 1951, denying the motion for execution, and laying, as the basis for said denial, the hackneyed, indeterminate and much abused phrase: ’in the interest of justice.’

"That on February 1, 1951, your petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, inviting the attention of the respondent, Judge Ramon R. San Jose to the error of the order Annex "C" in the performance of an act specifically enjoined upon him as a duty by Rule 72, section 8 of the Rules of Court.

The question for us to determine in the present case is whether the respondent judge was not bound to order the execution of the judgment of the Municipal Court, because the defendants-appellants had deposited all the rents due and unpaid after receiving notice of the motion for execution filed by the Plaintiff-Appellee.

We have already ruled in the case of Carbungco v. Amparo, 1 (46 Off. Gaz., Supp. to No. 11, p. 91), that payment or deposit by the defendant-appellant in a case of illegal detainer of the rents due, made after notice of a motion for execution had been served upon him by the plaintiff-appellee, cannot be accepted as an excuse for not ordering the execution of the judgment. It is true that in the case of Santos v. Alvarez Et. Al., 2 (44 Off. Gaz., [No. 11], 4259), we have held that, under Commonwealth Act No. 689, as amended by Republic Act No. 66, failure of the defendant-appellant in a case of illegal detainer to make on time periodical deposits or payment of the rents, adjudge by the inferior court during the pendency of his appeal to the Court of First Instance, is not ground for execution unless it be shown that the failure was deliberate or intentional. But this ruling was good only during four years from October 15, 1945, to October 14, 1949, in which said acts were in force. 3 (Estrada v. Caseda, 47 Off. Gaz., 1815.)

The respondent Judge is therefore compelled to order the execution of the judgment of the Municipal Court if said judgment is still enforceable or the case is still pending appeal in the Court of First Instance, with costs. So ordered.

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. 83 Phil., 638.

2. 78 Phil., 503.

3. 84 Phil., 791.




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






July-1951 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-3084 July 6, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO SANCHEZ

    089 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. L-3885 July 9, 1951 - FELISA BASA VDA. DE CONCEPCION v. JOSE R. SANTOS

    089 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. L-3757 July 12, 1951 - CARLOS A. MONTILLA v. FRANCISCO ARELLANO

    089 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. L-4465 July 12, 1951 - CHINESE FLOUR IMPORTERS ASSN. v. PRICE STABILIZATION BOARD

    089 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. L-3433 July 16, 1951 - LEON BORLAZA v. GREGORIO RAMOS

    089 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. L-4403 July 17, 1951 - WISE & COMPANY v. PRICE STABILIZATION CORP.

    089 Phil 469

  • G.R. No. L-3018 July 18, 1951 - IN RE: ROBERT CU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    089 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. L-3323 July 18, 1951 - IN RE: JACK J. BERMONT v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    089 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. L-3900 July 18, 1951 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. LEON SAMIA

    089 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. L-3233 July 23, 1951 - IN RE: UY CHIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    089 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. L-3278 July 28, 1951 - TEODORO TANDA v. NARCISO N. ALDAYA

    089 Phil 497

  • G.R. No. L-2654 July 24, 1951 - EUGENIO LIRIO v. PHILIPPINE POWER AND DEV. CO.

    089 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. L-3400 July 24, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIPRIANO CAMAY

    089 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. L-4706 July 24, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PASCASIO VILLASCO

    089 Phil 512

  • G.R. No. L-3622 July 26, 1951 - INTERPROVINCIAL AUTOBUS CO. v. FELIPE C. LUBATON

    089 Phil 516

  • G.R. No. L-3647 July 26, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANASTASIO ESCARRO

    089 Phil 520

  • G.R. Nos. L-2953 & L-4033 July 27, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO ASESOR Y JONES

    089 Phil 525

  • G.R. No. L-3397 July 27, 1951 - BASILIO AQUINO v. JOSE G. SANVICTORES

    089 Phil 532

  • G.R. No. L-3928 July 27, 1951 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO YSIP

    089 Phil 535

  • G.R. No. L-4205 July 27, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUPERTO METRAN

    089 Phil 543

  • G.R. No. L-3467 July 30, 1951 - BASILIA VALDEZ v. MARCELO PINEDA

    089 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. L-3479 July 30, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUFRACIO IRINCO

    089 Phil 555

  • G.R. No. L-3540 July 30, 1951 - FILOMENO B. CASSION v. BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO

    089 Phil 560

  • G.R. No. L-3733 July 30, 1951 - STANDARD COCONUT CORPORATION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    089 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. L-3981 July 30, 1951 - PHIL. ALIEN PROPERTY ADM. v. OSCAR CASTELO

    089 Phil 568

  • G.R. No. L-4583 July 30, 1951 - CONCHITA COINCO v. RAMON R. SAN JOSE

    089 Phil 578

  • G.R. Nos. L-2152 & L-2153 July 31, 1951 - SIMEONA N. DE CASTRO v. JOSE G. LONGA

    089 Phil 581

  • G.R. No. L-2432 July 31, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILOMENO DALIGDIG

    089 Phil 598

  • G.R. No. L-2578 July 31, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LADISLAO BACOLOD

    089 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. L-2611 July 31, 1951 - ALEJANDRO KEYSER TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    089 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. L-3439 July 31, 1951 - ALEJANDRO SAMSON v. AGAPITO B. ANDAL

    089 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. L-3455 July 31, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOTERO ULIP

    089 Phil 629

  • G.R. No. L-3519 July 31, 1951 - TOMASA AREVALO v. ROBERTO A. BARRETO

    089 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. L-3597 July 31, 1951 - TEODORO LANDIG v. U. S. COMMERCIAL CO.

    089 Phil 638

  • G.R. No. L-3601 July 31, 1951 - UY HOO AND COMPANY v. JOAQUIN C. YUSECO

    089 Phil 644

  • G.R. No. L-3766 July 31, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELICERIO TAN

    089 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. L-3775 July 31, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HOSPICIO LABATA

    089 Phil 661

  • G.R. No. L-3822 July 31, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO FELICIANO

    089 Phil 664

  • G.R. No. L-4019 July 31, 1951 - TOMAS VILLANUEVA v. TENANCY LAW ENFORCEMENT DIV.

    089 Phil 668

  • G.R. Nos. L-4517-20 July 31, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GODOFREDO ROMERO

    089 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. L-4681 July 31, 1951 - MARCELA DE BORJA VDA. DE TORRES v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION

    089 Phil 678