Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1956 > July 1956 Decisions > [G.R. No. L-8657. July 31, 1956.] ERASMO ALVAREZ and MARCIANO PARANADA, Petitioners, vs. HONORABLE LUCAS LACSON, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Zambales, CASIANO A. LADIORAY and SERAPIO ARIMBUANGA, Respondents.:




EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-8657.  July 31, 1956.]

ERASMO ALVAREZ and MARCIANO PARANADA, Petitioners, vs. HONORABLE LUCAS LACSON, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Zambales, CASIANO A. LADIORAY and SERAPIO ARIMBUANGA, Respondents.

 

D E C I S I O N

ENDENCIA, J.:

On November 15, 1950, the justice of the peace court of San Marcelino, Zambales, rendered a decision in civil case No. 10 for forcible entry and detainer, entitled Casiano Ladioray and Serapio Arimbuanga, Plaintiffs, vs. Esteban Alegre, Blas Javier and Mariano Rivera, Defendants, ordering the latter “to vacate the land in question and restore its possession to the Plaintiffs, to give to the Plaintiffs the annual produce of 50 cavanes of palay or its equivalent value in the amount of P575 and to pay P250 by way of damages.” The Defendants appealed from that decision and, to stay its immediate execution, they filed on April 4, 1951 a supersedeas bond undertaken by the herein Petitioners, conditioned to “enter the action in the Court of First Instance of Zambales, and to pay the damages and costs down to the time of the final judgment in the action.” Thereafter, the case was transmitted to the Court of First Instance of Zambales where it was docketed as Civil Case No. 1388. While the case was pending trial in the latter court, the Defendants failed to give to the Plaintiff’s the 50 cavanes of palay or its value, corresponding to the crop of 1951-1952, hence the Plaintiffs moved for the immediate execution of the aforesaid decision. This motion was granted, but it was subject to the right of the Defendants to file another supersedeas bond which was posted on August 29, 1951 by the herein Petitioners. Upon opposition by the Plaintiffs, this second bond was disapproved by the Court in its order dated September 25, 1951, but at the same time it ordered the Defendants to execute another bond within the period of 15 days, otherwise the judgment of the Justice of the Peace Court of San Marcelino will be executed. Accordingly, another bond was posted by Messrs. Pablo Recaido and Agripino Ferrer, not by the herein Petitioners.

While the case was in this condition, upon petition of the Plaintiffs, the Court issued on June 3, 1954 an order of execution against the herein Petitioners, who, upon receipt thereof, filed on July 19, 1954 a motion to set it aside and to stay the sale of their properties, claiming that it was erroneously issued against them in that they were not the bondsmen of the Defendants in the Court of First Instance but Messrs. Pablo Recaido and Agripino Ferrer. On August 26, 1954, the motion was denied by the court on the ground that the bond which is the subject of the writ of execution is the supersedeas bond filed by the herein Petitioner on April 4, 1951, and not that filed on August 29, 1951, and that the writ of execution was issued to enforce the judgment of the justice of the peace court of November 15, 1950. Thereupon, on September 2, 1954 the Petitioners filed another motion to set aside the writ of execution, alleging that the supersedeas bond posted by the herein Petitioners on April 4, 1951 cannot be executed for the case was still pending hearing in the Court of First Instance and there was no judgment on which to base the writ of execution. On September 24, 1954, His Honor, the Respondent Judge Lucas Lacson, entered the following order:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

“Considering that the decision of the justice of the peace court of San Marcelino, Zambales, explicitly provides for payment to Plaintiffs the annual produce of fifty cavans of palay or pay its equivalent in the amount of P575 which provision the herein Defendants have failed to comply; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat it appears from the sheriff’s return that the herein Defendants are all insolvent (p. 245, rec.); chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat at any rate the obligation undertaken by the bondsmen Erasmo Alvarez and Marciano Paranada is joint and solidary with and not merely subsidiary to that of their principal the herein Defendants; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand that section 8 Rule 72 of the Rules of Court does not limit the execution to the possession of the property in question but it also refers to the execution of the whole judgment rendered by the Justice of the Peace Court or the Municipal Court which may include not only possession but also payment of rents or damages (Villaroman vs. Abaya et al., G.R. No. 4833, promulgated March 21, 1952), the court finds the “Motion for Reconsideration and second Motion for Dismissal of Writ of Execution” filed on September 2, 1954 by Atty. Gregorio Dolojan, counsel for the bondsmen-movants Erasmo Alvarez and Marciano Paranada, to be without merit and hereby denies said motions.”

As could be gathered from the foregoing, the main question involved in this case is whether the supersedeas bond of April 4, 1951 posted by the herein Petitioners to stay the execution of the judgment of the Justice of the Peace Court of San Marcelino, Zambales, can be executed before the case is tried and decided by the Court of First Instance of Zambales. Under section 8 of Rule 72 of the Rules of Court, during the pendency of the appeal, upon failure of the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff or to deposit with the Court of First Instance, from time to time, the rent due as found by the judgment of the justice of the peace or municipal court on or before the 10th day of each calendar month, the Plaintiff has a perfect right to secure a writ of execution, but that execution should not extend to the sureties of the supersedeas bond which, as we held in several cases, only answers for the rents or damages down to the time of perfection of the appeal taken from the final judgment rendered in the justice of the peace or municipal court and not for the future rents or damages that may accrue during the pendency of the appeal, which are guaranteed by periodical deposits or payments to be made by Defendant-Appellants. (Aylon vs. Jugo, 78 Phil., 818; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryUniversity of Sto. Tomas vs. Ocampo, 85 Phil., 144 and Hilado vs. Tan, G.R. No. L-1964, August 23, 1950). Accordingly, we find that the disputed order of the herein Respondent judge, dated September 24, 1954, is completely erroneous in so far as it ordered the execution of the supersedeas bond posted on April 4, 1951 by the herein Petitioners in the justice of the peace court of San Marcelino because that bond was conditioned to “enter the action in the Court of First Instance of Zambales and to pay damages and costs down to the time of the final judgment” that the said court may render in the case and, up to the filing of this petition before us, the aforementioned civil case No. 1388 was still pending hearing in that court. Moreover, it appears that to stay the execution of the judgment of the justice of the peace court of San Marcelino during the pendency of the case in the Court of First Instance of Zambales, the Defendants had filed another bond executed to the Plaintiffs by Pablo Recaido and Agripino Ferrer and, if at all, this bond should be the one ordered executed and not the aforesaid supersedeas bond posted by the herein Petitioners. Accordingly, we hold that in the case at bar, while the Respondent judge has correctly issued the writ of execution of the above- mentioned judgment of the justice of the peace court of San Marcelino with regard to the delivery to the Plaintiffs of the possession of the land in question and to collect from the Defendants the damages adjudicated in their favor, His Honor, however, committed error in ordering the execution of the supersedeas bond of April 4, 1951 because the case was still pending in his court and no decision has as yet been rendered therein against the Defendants.

Wherefore, the disputed order of April 4, 1951 as well as the aforesaid writ of execution dated June 3, 1954 are hereby set aside and the Respondent judge enjoined from enforcing them.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A. Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., and Felix, JJ., concur.




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-1956 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. L-8194. July 11, 1956.] EMERENCIANA M. VDA. DE MEDINA, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. GUILLERMO CRESENCIA, ET AL., Defendants. GUILLERMO CRESENCIA, Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-9575. July 17, 1956.] PEDRO CEREZO, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE EMANUEL. M. MU�OZ, Judge Court of First Instance of Pangasinan and PEDRO S. SISON, Respondents.

  • [G.R. Nos. L-6025-26. July 18, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. AMADO V. HERNANDEZ, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-6990. July 20, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. KAMAD ARINSO, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. Nos. L-7872-73. July 20, 1956.] IN RE PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION OF RAYMUNDO PE and FORTUNATO PE. RAYMUNDO PE and FORTUNATO PE, Petitioners-Appellees, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8750. July 20, 1956.] NATIONAL UNION OF PRINTING WORKERS, Petitioners, vs. ENCLOSED WITH PAY THE ASIA PRINTING AND/OR LU MING, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-7578. July 24, 1956.] CRISPULO MALICSE, Petitioner, vs. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8753. July 24, 1956.] MRS. CARIDAD DE LA CRUZ DE BERONILLA, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SEGUNDO M. MARTINEZ, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan and MELCHOR BERONILLA, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8878. July 24, 1956.] FELIPE B. OLLADA, Petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, SECRETARY OF FINANCE, UNDER-SECRETARY OF FINANCE, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, VICENTE I. CRUZ, SABINA R. SORIANO, NEW WORLD PRINTING PRESS and YAM NAN, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8604. July 25, 1956.] CANDIDO PANCHO, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. MANUEL VILLANUEVA, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-5079. July 31, 1956.] J. M. TUASON & Co., INC., represented by its managing partner THE GREGORIO ARANETA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GERONIMO SANTIAGO, ELENO SANTIAGO PABLO SANTIAGO, CECILIO SANTIAGO and CONSTANTINO SANTIAGO, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-6204. July 31, 1956.] CAPITOL SUBDIVISION, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PROVINCE OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-7834. July 31, 1956.] SEVERINO D. VALENCIA and CATALINA S. L. VALENCIA, Petitioners, vs. ROMAN LEONCIO and THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-7983. July 31, 1956.] PETRA BELTRAN, ET ALS., Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. ARSENIO ESCUDERO, ET ALS., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-8157. July 31, 1956.] LIM HU, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL., Respondents-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-8475. July 31, 1956.] RICARDO Y. SUNGA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. VlCTORlANO ALVlAR, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8583. July 31, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. FRANCISCO HILVANO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8627. July 31, 1956.] VITALIANO ROBLES, ET AL., Petitioners-Appellants, vs. CANDIDA SAN JOSE, ET AL., Respondents-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-8657. July 31, 1956.] ERASMO ALVAREZ and MARCIANO PARANADA, Petitioners, vs. HONORABLE LUCAS LACSON, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Zambales, CASIANO A. LADIORAY and SERAPIO ARIMBUANGA, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8761. July 31, 1956.] INSULAR SAW MILL, INC., Petitioner, vs. CHARLIE HOGAN and DEE C. TAM (As partners in the unregistered partnership Charlie Hogan and Co., doing business under the name and style of �Ganie Enterprises�), Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8943. July 31, 1956.] JOSE MIRANDA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MALATE GARAGE & TAXICAB, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8964. July 31, 1956.] JUAN EDADES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. SEVERINO EDADES, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-9037. July 31, 1956.] MARIANO B. VILLANUEVA and CONSUELO PAPA-VILLANUEVA, Petitioners, vs. HONORABLE PRIMITIVO GONZALES, Judge of the Court of First Instance, and Provincial Fiscal MARIANO B. BENEDICTO, both of Cavite, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9252. July 31, 1956.] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. ERNESTO P. HERNANDO, ETC., ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9284. July 31, 1956.] TERESA FELIX VDA. DE ROSARIO, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OF CAMILING, TARLAC, MELANIO ROSARIO and MARIA INOVEJAS, Respondents-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-9317. July 31, 1956.] AGAPITO CRUZ CORREA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. HERMOGENES PASCUAL, Defendant. JUAN LUCIANO and ARSENIA DE LEON, movants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-9572. July 31, 1956.] JOAQUIN GUZMAN, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-9667. July 31, 1956.] LUIS MA. ARANETA, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE HERMOGENES CONCEPCION, as judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch VI and EMMA BENITEZ ARANETA, Respondents.