GR L 2672; (December, 1949) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2672. December 13, 1949.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS, petitioner, vs. BUENAVENTURA OCAMPO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, DIONISIO PABILOÑA and YU TUY (alias YU BONTOY), respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner University of Santo Tomas (UST) obtained a judgment in the Municipal Court of Manila against respondents (tenants) in an unlawful detainer case, ordering them to vacate the premises and pay accrued rents and damages. The respondents appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI). To stay the execution of the judgment during appeal, they filed a supersedeas bond approved by the municipal court. After the appeal was docketed in the CFI, UST filed a motion for immediate execution, arguing that the respondents failed to pay or deposit the rent for the month of September 1948 by the 10th of October as required. The respondent judge denied the motion, holding that the September rent was covered by the supersedeas bond. The respondents had been depositing subsequent months’ rents with the CFI clerk.
ISSUE
Whether, in an unlawful detainer case on appeal, the defendant-appellant must pay or deposit only the rentals accruing after the perfection of the appeal, provided the rentals accruing prior thereto are covered by the supersedeas bond.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court denied UST’s petition for mandamus, upholding the respondent judge’s denial of the motion for execution. The Court, citing Aylon vs. Jugo, held that to prevent execution during the pendency of an appeal, only the rentals accruing after the perfection of the appeal need be paid to the plaintiff or deposited with the CFI. The unpaid rentals that had accrued before the appeal are guaranteed by the supersedeas bond filed in the municipal court. Since the supersedeas bond in this case included the rent for September 1948 and was approved by the municipal court, and the appeal was perfected and docketed in September, the respondents were only required to deposit rents for October and succeeding months. The motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied, reaffirming this doctrine.
AI Generated by Armztrong.