GR L 2745; (April, 1949) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2745; April 13, 1949
Flaviano Romero, petitioner, vs. Potenciano Pecson, as Presiding Judge of Sala No. VI of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Macario Ofilada, as Sheriff of the City of Manila, and Dolores P. de Espedido, as party-plaintiff in civil case No. 3280 for Ejectment in the Court of First Instance of Manila, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Flaviano Romero was the defendant in an ejectment case (forcible entry and illegal detainer) filed by respondent Dolores P. de Espedido in the Municipal Court of Manila. The Municipal Court sentenced Romero to pay a monthly rental of P120 and to vacate the premises. Romero appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) but did not file a supersedeas bond or deposit the accrued rentals (from February 1947) as required. Consequently, the Municipal Court’s judgment was executed, and Romero vacated the premises on April 21, 1947. On appeal, the CFI increased the rental to P150 per month and ordered Romero to pay rentals from February 1947 to April 21, 1948, and to vacate. Romero appealed this CFI decision to the Supreme Court. Respondent Espedido moved for execution of the CFI judgment, which the CFI granted on the ground that Romero failed to pay the monthly rentals, file a supersedeas bond, or make deposits. Romero filed this certiorari petition, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the CFI judge in ordering execution, arguing that since he had already vacated the premises, there was no need for a supersedeas bond and that his appeal was not dilatory.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the execution of its judgment in an ejectment case despite the petitioner’s appeal, due to his failure to file a supersedeas bond or deposit accrued rentals.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The CFI’s order of execution was properly issued under Section 9, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court (now Rule 70), not under Rule 39. In ejectment cases, the execution of a CFI judgment on appeal is not stayed unless the appellant pays to the plaintiff or deposits with the court the rentals determined by the CFI or files a supersedeas bond. Romero failed to comply with these requirements. The Court clarified that the obligation to file a bond or make deposits applies regardless of whether the appellant remains in possession, as the purpose is to secure payment of accrued rentals and damages, not merely restitution of possession. The CFI acted in accordance with law, not with grave abuse of discretion. The rationale is to prevent appellants from delaying execution without providing security for monetary awards, ensuring effective administration of justice in ejectment suits.
AI Generated by Armztrong.