GR L 12971; (February, 1918) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-12971; February 18, 1918
FLORENCIO DOMINGO, petitioner, vs. TOMAS FLORDELIZA, as auxiliary judge, and LUCIO BENITO, respondents.
FACTS:
On January 26, 1914, petitioner Florencio Domingo filed an action for desahucio (ejectment) in the Justice of the Peace Court of Piddig, Ilocos Norte, to recover possession of a parcel of land and damages for its use and occupation. On February 27, 1914, the court ruled in favor of Domingo, ordering respondent Lucio Benito to deliver possession of the land and pay “diez uyones de palay” or its equivalent value of ₱150 annually. Benito appealed to the Court of First Instance and posted a ₱200 bond to guarantee compliance with the judgment. On January 8, 1917, Domingo moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that Benito had failed to pay the annual amounts due for 19141916 as required by law, and sought execution of the judgment. The Court of First Instance, through respondent Judge Tomas Flordeliza, denied the motion on February 27, 1917. Domingo then petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel the dismissal of the appeal and payment of the accrued amounts.
ISSUE:
Whether the Court of First Instance erred in denying the motion to dismiss the appeal due to the appellant’s failure to pay the amounts specified in the judgment during the pendency of the appeal.
RULING:
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition for mandamus. The Court held that under the original provision of Section 2 of Act No. 1778 , failure to pay the required amounts during appeal warranted dismissal of the appeal. However, this section had been repealed by Section 1 of Act No. 2588 . Under the new law, the Court of First Instance is no longer authorized to dismiss an appeal in a desahucio case for mere non-payment. Instead, if the appellant fails to pay the amounts due during the appeal, the appellee may move for execution of the judgment of the justice of the peace regarding possession of the property, without affecting the continuation of the appeal on its merits. Therefore, the respondent judge correctly denied the motion to dismiss. The proper remedy for Domingo was to seek execution of the lower court’s judgment, not dismissal of the appeal. Costs were imposed on the petitioner.
This is AI (Gemini and Deepseek) Generated. Please Double Check. Powered by Armztrong.