G.R. No. L-3642; April 28, 1951
CARLOS ZABALJAUREGUI, petitioner, vs. POTENCIANO PECSON, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila; THE SHERIFF OF THE CITY OF MANILA; and ANGEL DE LEON ONG, respondents.

FACTS

On December 6, 1946, respondent Angel de Leon Ong filed an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 1895) in the Municipal Court of Manila against petitioner Carlos Zabaljauregui over a property in Tanduay, Quiapo, Manila. Based on a stipulation by the parties, the court rendered judgment ordering Zabaljauregui to pay P350 as back rentals and a monthly rental of P70 from January 1947. The defendant was allowed to remain in the premises until a final judgment was rendered in a separate civil case between Manuel Tambunting and Angel de Leon Ong pending in the Court of First Instance. Zabaljauregui filed a motion for new trial, which was denied, prompting his appeal to the Court of First Instance. For failing to pay the rentals as ordered, Ong moved for a writ of execution under Section 8, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court, which the court granted. Zabaljauregui’s motions for reconsideration were denied, leading to this petition for certiorari. Prior to Ong’s case, Simeon O. Suan had filed another ejectment case (Civil Case No. 1857) against Zabaljauregui over the same property, but it was eventually dismissed. During the pendency of Ong’s case, Manuel Tambunting intervened, claiming he had filed a case for recovery of the same property against Ong. Ong later sold the property to Simeon O. Suan, and upon Suan’s death, his heirs were substituted as parties.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court abused its discretion in issuing the writ of execution for the judgment of the Municipal Court, despite petitioner’s reasons for refusing to comply, namely: (1) the sale of the property by Ong to Suan, the plaintiff in another ejectment case where petitioner had deposited rentals; (2) the failure of Suan or his heirs to dismiss the other ejectment case, potentially forcing petitioner to pay double rentals; and (3) the pendency of a reivindicatory case involving the same property, exposing petitioner to the risk of paying treble rentals.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The reasons advanced by the petitioner were neither tenable nor valid under the law. The existence of two ejectment cases did not justify non-payment of rentals, as only one had a judgment rendered, while the other had become academic and was dismissed. The pendency of the reivindicatory case filed by Tambunting was also not a valid excuse, as Section 8, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court required rental deposits to be held by the court until the final disposition of the appeal, to be paid to the prevailing party (either Tambunting, if he wins due to his intervention, or to Ong or his successors). Allowing the petitioner to withhold rental deposits until the ejectment case’s termination would unjustly enrich him at the owner’s expense. The writ of preliminary injunction was dissolved.