Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > September 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-13446 September 30, 1960 - MAXIMO SISON v. HON. FROILAN BAYONA, ET AL.

109 Phil 557:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-13446. September 30, 1960.]

MAXIMO SISON, Petitioner, v. HON. FROILAN BAYONA, ET AL., Respondents.

Jose Agbulos for Petitioner.

Calixto A. Munda for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. EJECTMENT; PROCEDURE IF DEFENDANT DESIRES TO AVERT EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL. — If the judgment is in favor of defendant there is no judgment for possession that may be executed because defendant is entitled to continue in possession of the property. But when the judgment is in favor of plaintiff the rule requires that it be executed immediately in order to prevent further damages to him caused by the loss of his possession. However, defendant may stay execution (a) by perfecting an appeal and filing a supersedeas bond; and (b) by paying from time to time either to plaintiff or to the court of first instance, during the pendency of the appeal, the amounts of rentals or the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the property as may be fixed by the justice of the peace court in its judgment. This rule is mandatory, the only exception being when the delay is due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence.

2. APPEAL AND ERROR; EJECTMENT; SUPERSEDEAS BOND PURPOSE OF. — A supersedeas bond has for its purpose to secure payment of the rents, damages and costs that may have been adjudged in the appealed judgment, which bond becomes unnecessary if defendant deposits in court the amount of back rentals fixed in the judgment. In other words, the supersedeas bond answers only for the back rentals fixed in the judgment and not for those that may accrue during the pendency of the appeal which are guaranteed by the periodical deposits to be made by defendant.


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


Maximo Sison sometime in 1951 became the lessee of a parcel of land situated in Sampaloc, Manila, known as Lot No. 15-A, Block No. 37 of the Subdivision Plan of the Legarda Estate on which lot Sison erected a house where he lived with his family.

On February 9, 1954, Mauro Prieto, the lessor, brought an action for ejectment against Sison before the Municipal Court of Manila for nonpayment of the agreed rental. On April 12, 1954, the municipal court rendered judgment sentencing Sison to pay the sum of P200.28 as unpaid rentals due up to February, 1954, plus the rentals that may accrue from March 1, 1954, at the rate of P8.00 a month until the property is vacated, plus attorney’s fees and costs. From this decision Sison appealed.

In his answer filed in the court of first instance Sison alleged that he has been occupying the property for approximately 10 years; that he has never refused to pay the rentals; and that he has made improvements thereon worth P6,000.00. Because of Sison’s failure to file a supersedeas bond, plaintiff moved for the execution of the judgment, including the demolition of Sison’s house. The court gave Sison time within which to deposit with the court the amount of P137.00 representing rentals in arrears with the warning that should he fail to make that deposit the execution prayed for will be issued. In compliance with said order Sison made the deposit on September 23, 1957.

On December 3, 1957, because of Sison’s failure to file a supersedeas bond as well as to deposit the rentals that were becoming due as embodied in the judgment of the municipal court, plaintiff again filed a motion for execution and demolition. This motion was granted in an order issued on December 10, 1957.

On December 15, 1957, Sison moved to quash the order stating that he has already deposited the proper amount to cover the rentals in arrears and those that were becoming due, while on the other hand the lot in dispute is already included in the expropriation proceedings instituted by the Land Tenure Administration pursuant to Section 1, Republic Act No. 1162, as amended by Republic Act No. 1599. The motion to quash was denied. Since the efforts made by Sison to have the order reconsidered failed, he interposed the present petition for certiorari.

It is contended that since petitioner has already complied with the order of the trial court dated September 12, 1957 wherein he was required to deposit with the clerk of court the amount of P137.00 within a period of 15 days, the trial court committed an abuse of discretion in issuing the order of execution of the judgment of the justice of the peace, including the demolition of petitioner’s house, or the reason that the same has been issued without legal justification.

The order above referred to reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In the decision of the lower court, the defendant is sentenced to pay the sum of P200.28 representing unpaid rentals computed to include the rentals up to February 1954 at the rate of P8.00 per month. The defendant started depositing the said rentals only in June 1954 without filing a supersedeas bond. Counting from March 1954 to August 1957 is 42 months, and at the rate of P8.00 per month, it would total P336.00 which should have been deposited with the Clerk of Court, but only P190.00 has so far been deposited, which was withdrawn by the herein plaintiff from this Court leaving still a balance of P137.00. It is clear, therefore, that the said defendant is in arrears by way of rentals in the said sum of P137.00.

"Wherefore, the defendant is hereby ordered to deposit with the Clerk of Court the said amount of P137.00 within fifteen (15) days from today. If the payment of said sum is not made at the end of said period of 15 days, the defendant should vacate the premises and remove his house and other improvements belonging to him within sixty (60) days from today. In the event this order is not complied with, the City Sheriff of Manila is hereby authorized to demolish any and all buildings and improvements belonging to the defendant in the premises of the plaintiff."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is apparent that the trial court did not properly interpret the law relative to the steps to be taken by defendant in an ejectment case against whom a judgment is rendered requiring him to pay back rentals and to restore the possession of the property to the plaintiff, which makes it necessary to restate herein the procedure to be followed by defendant should he desire to avert the execution of the judgment pending appeal.

The pertinent law is Rule 72, Section 8, from which the following procedure may be inferred: If the judgment is in favor of defendant there is no judgment for possession that may be executed because defendant is entitled to continue in possession of the property. But when the judgment is in favor of plaintiff the rule requires that it be executed immediately in order to prevent further damages to him caused by the loss of his possession. 1 However, defendant may stay execution (a) by perfecting an appeal and filing a supersedeas bond; and (b) by paying from time to time either to plaintiff or to the court of first instance, during the pendency of the appeal, the amounts of rentals or the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the property as may be fixed by the justice of the peace court in its judgment. This rule is mandatory, 2 the only exception being when the delay is due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence. 3

A supersedeas bond, on the other hand, has for its purpose to secure payment of the rents, damages and costs that may have been adjudged in the appealed judgment, which bond becomes unnecessary if defendant deposits in court the amount of back rentals fixed in the judgment. 4 In other words, the supersedeas bond answers only for back rentals as fixed in the judgment and not for those that may accrue during the pendency of the appeal which are guaranteed by the periodical deposits to be made by defendant. 5

It would, therefore, appear that the trial court erred in denying the motion for execution by allowing petitioner to deposit the amount necessary to complete not only the back rents fixed in the judgment but also the current rentals that had accrued during the pendency of the appeal, because such action is contrary to the procedure laid down in the law 6 . As already stated, if petitioner wanted to stay the execution he should have put up a supersedeas bond or should have deposited the amount necessary to pay the back rents. This he failed to do, although he made partial deposits to cover current rentals which always fell short of those required in the judgment. Verily, under the law, plaintiff became entitled to the writ of execution prayed for, which the court should have granted outright, instead of issuing the order quoted above. But the court rectified its mistake when it issued later a writ of execution. Hence, the present petition has no merit.

While it may be true that during the pendency of the ejectment case special proceedings were started by the Land Tenure Administration for the expropriation of several lots including the lot in question pursuant to the provision of Section 1, Republic Act No. 1162, as amended by Republic Act No. 1599, which action may have the effect of suspending for a period of two years the present ejectment case, it should be noted that under Section 5 of said Act No. 1162 this benefit of suspension is only accorded to a defendant who pays his current rentals, and is not extended to one who is delinquent. Here petitioner has proven to be a frequent delinquent tenant and as such is not entitled to the benefit of the law.

Wherefore, petition is denied. The writ of injunction issued by this Court is dissolved. No pronouncement as to costs.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Labrador, Concepción, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Gutierrez David, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Pascua v. Nable, 71 Phil., 186; Yu Tiong Tay v. Barrios, 79 Phil., 597; Sumintac v. Court, 71 Phil., 445; Arcilla v. Del Rosario, 74 Phil., 445.

2. Arcilla v. Del Rosario, supra; Cunanan v. Rodas, 78 Phil., 800.

3. Cunanan v. Podas, supra.

4. Mitschiener v. Barrios Et. Al., 76 Phil., 55; Sogueco v. Natividad, 30 Phil., 829.

5. Aylon v. Jugo, Et Al., 78 Phil, 816; University of Sto. Tomas v. Ocampo, 85 Phil., 144; Hilado v. Tan, L-1964. August 28, 1950; See also Bagtas v. Judge Tan, Et Al., 93 Phil, 804; 49 Off. Gaz. (10) 4370.

6. Lapuz v. Ct. of First Instance of Pampanga, 46 Phil., 77; Arcega v. Dizon, 76 Phil., 164; Ysrael v. Court of Appeals and La Perla de la India, 78 Phil., 831; Meneses v. Dinglasan, 81 Phil., 470; Carbungco v. Amparo, 83 Phil., 638; 46 Off. Gaz., Supp. (11) 91; Triviño v. Gubatan, Et Al., L-3556, Jan. 31, 1950; Lim Ching v. Sandoval, G. R. No. 49227, August 4, 1944.




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






September-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12645 September 15, 1960 - JUANA PADRON VDA. DE VALENZUELA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. L-14179 September 15, 1960 - PERMANENT CONCRETE PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL. v. JUAN FRIVALDO

    109 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. L-13943 September 19, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELIANO ARRANCHADO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-13815 September 26, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIAS OYCO

    109 Phil 415

  • G.R. No. L-14740 September 26, 1960 - ANDRES SANTOS, ET AL. v. HON. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO, ETC.

    109 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. L-14939 September 26, 1960 - ELVIRA VIDAL TUASON DE RICKARDS v. ANDRES F. GONZALES

    109 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. L-12298 September 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO AGARIN

    109 Phil 430

  • G.R. No. L-12906 September 29, 1960 - DUMANGAY GUITING v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. L-13255 September 29, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. JOSE COJUANGCO

    109 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. L-13475 September 29, 1960 - PHIL. SUGAR INSTITUTE v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. L-15226 September 29, 1960 - LEE GUAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 460

  • G.R. No. L-10119 September 30, 1960 - RAFAEL LACSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 462

  • G.R. Nos. L-10352-53 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAUDENCIO MANlGBAS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 469

  • G.R. No. L-11329 September 30, 1960 - CIPRIANO B. MOTOS v. ROBERTO SOLER, ET AL.

    109 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. L-11440 September 30, 1960 - SERGIO F. DEL CASTILLO v. EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 491

  • G.R. No. L-12030 September 30, 1960 - JOSE J. ROTEA v. FORTUNATO F. HALILI

    109 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. L-12149 September 30, 1960 - HEIRS OF EMILIO CANDELARIA, ETC. v. LUISA ROMERO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. L-12328 September 30, 1960 - CARLOS J. RIVERA v. TOMAS T. TIRONA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 505

  • G.R. No. L-12353 September 30, 1960 - NORTH CAMARINES LUMBER CO., INC. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    109 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. L-12641 September 30, 1960 - EMILIANA C. ESTRELLA v. PUBLIC SERVICE COM., ET AL.

    109 Phil 514

  • G.R. Nos. L-12664-65 September 30, 1960 - ANTONINO LAZARO, ET AL. v. FIDELA R. GOMEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-12894 September 30, 1960 - LILIA JUANA BARLES, ET AL. v. DON ALFONSO PONCE ENRILE

    109 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. L-13023 September 30, 1960 - INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD. v. TERESA DUAT VDA. DE FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 530

  • G.R. No. L-13283 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERAPIO CARUNUNGAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 534

  • G.R. No. L-13349 September 30, 1960 - MIGUEL GAMAO, ET AL. v. DOMINADOR C. CALAMBA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 542

  • G.R. Nos. L-13389-90 September 30, 1960 - CAPITOL SUBD., INC., ET AL. v. ALFREDO LOPEZ MONTELIBANO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 546

  • G.R. No. L-13417 September 30, 1960 - JOSE B. VILLACORTA, ETC. v. HON. FERNANDO VILLAROSA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. L-13426 September 30, 1960 - INT’L. OIL FACTORY v. TOMASA MARTINEZ VDA. DE DORIA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 553

  • G.R. No. L-13446 September 30, 1960 - MAXIMO SISON v. HON. FROILAN BAYONA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 557

  • G.R. No. L-13467 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN NECESITO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 563

  • G.R. No. L-13546 September 30, 1960 - GREGORIO VERZOSA v. CITY OF BAGUIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 571

  • G.R. Nos. L-13567-68 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSARIO B. DE LEON

    109 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-13582 September 30, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CIRILO P. BAYLOSIS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 580

  • G.R. No. L-13686 September 30, 1960 - HEIRS OF JUSTO MALFORE v. DlR. OF FORESTRY

    109 Phil 586

  • G.R. No. L-13912 September 30, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CONSUELO L. VDA. DE PRIETO

    109 Phil 592

  • G.R. No. L-13941 September 30, 1960 - ANTONIO A. RODRIGUEZ, ETC. v. S. BLAQUERA, ETC.

    109 Phil 598

  • G.R. Nos. L-13992 & L-14035 September 30, 1960 - MANILA ELECTRIC CO. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    109 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. L-14008 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TRIZON REMOLLINO

    109 Phil 607

  • G.R. No. L-14348 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIRIACO YEBRA

    109 Phil 613

  • G.R. No. L-14395 September 30, 1960 - MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. v. CATALINA V. YANDOC, ET AL.

    109 Phil 616

  • G.R. No. L-14497 September 30, 1960 - FELIX PAULINO, SR., ET AL. v. HON. JOSE T. SURTIDA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. L-14628 September 30, 1960 - FRANCISCO HERMOSISIMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 629

  • G.R. No. L-14630 September 30, 1960 - LY HONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 635

  • G.R. No. L-14733 September 30, 1960 - ERLINDA ESTOPA v. LORETO PIANSAY, JR.

    109 Phil 640

  • G.R. No. L-14737 September 30, 1960 - LEONCIA VELASCO v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 642

  • G.R. No. L-14817 September 30, 1960 - ANDRES G. SANCHEZ, ET AL. v. NORTHERN LUZON TRANS. CO. INC.

    109 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. L-14822 September 30, 1960 - KHAW DY, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

    109 Phil 649

  • G.R. No. L-14874 September 30, 1960 - ANTONIO PEREZ v. ANGELA TUASON DE PEREZ

    109 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. L-14914 September 30, 1960 - JOHN TAN CHIN ENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 660

  • G.R. No. L-14930 September 30, 1960 - MARLI PLYWOOD & VENEER CORP. v. JOSE ARAÑAS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 664

  • G.R. No. L-15021 September 30, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 667

  • G.R. No. L-15101 September 30, 1960 - IN RE: CHUA TIAN SANG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 670

  • G.R. No. L-15158 September 30, 1960 - JESUS S. DIZON v. HON. NECIAS O. MENDOZA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 674

  • G.R. No. L-15179 September 30, 1960 - TEODORA AMAR v. JESUS ODIAMAN

    109 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. L-15208 September 30, 1960 - ALIPIO N. CASILAN, ET AL. v. SANTIAGO GANGCAYCO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 686

  • G.R. No. L-15266 September 30, 1960 - TAN HOI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 689

  • G.R. No. L-15274 September 30, 1960 - DOMINGO ALMONTE UY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 694

  • G.R. No. L-15305 September 30, 1960 - CITY OF MANILA v. ARCADIO PALLUGNA

    109 Phil 698

  • G.R. No. L-15327 September 30, 1960 - FIDEL FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. HON. GREGORIO D. MONTEJO

    109 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. L-15380 September 30, 1960 - CHAN WAN v. TAN KIM, ET AL.

    109 Phil 706

  • G.R. No. L-15392 September 30, 1960 - REX TAXlCAB CO., INC. v. JOSE BAUTISTA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. L-15454 September 30, 1960 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. EMILIANA FERRER, ET AL.

    109 Phil 716

  • G.R. No. L-15802 September 30, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE MAGALONA, JR., ET AL.

    109 Phil 723

  • G.R. Nos. L-15928-33 September 30, 1960 - DIOSDADO C. TY v. FILIPINAS CIA. DE SEGUROS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. L-16088 September 30, 1960 - LUZON SURETY CO., INC. v. FIDELA MORIN DE MARBELLA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 734

  • G.R. No. L-16226 September 30, 1960 - GUILLERMO REÑOSA v. HON. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 740