G.R. No. 85466 October 16, 1992
HUALAM CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. and TAN BEE GIOK, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent State Investment House, Inc. is the owner of State Centre Building. Petitioner Hualam Construction and Development Corporation, represented by co-petitioner Tan Bee Giok, occupied Unit No. 1505 pursuant to a Contract to Sell executed on September 22, 1983. The contract stipulated the purchase price and terms of payment, including monthly installments and other charges. Section 12 of the contract provided that failure to pay any monthly installment within thirty days from its due date would render the contract null and void, and the vendee in possession would become a mere intruder or unlawful detainer.
For petitioners’ failure and refusal to pay accumulated downpayment, installments, utility charges, and other assessments, private respondent filed a complaint for ejectment with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Manila, docketed as Civil Case No. 111274. Petitioners filed an Answer with Special Defenses and a motion to dismiss, which was denied. After petitioners and their counsel failed to appear at the pre-trial conference on September 11, 1986, the MTC declared them in default and allowed private respondent to present evidence ex-parte. On October 27, 1986, the MTC rendered a decision in favor of private respondent, ordering petitioners to vacate the premises and pay various sums.
Petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal on January 19, 1987. Private respondent filed a Motion for Immediate Execution based on Section 8, Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Court. The MTC granted the motion on January 27, 1987. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that a supersedeas bond was unnecessary as the case did not involve unpaid rents but unpaid downpayment and installments, and that the perfection of their appeal automatically stayed execution. The MTC denied the motion on March 9, 1987, and a writ of execution was issued on March 11, 1987. On March 16, 1987, the sheriff restored possession to private respondent and levied upon petitioners’ personal properties, setting a public auction sale for March 26, 1987.
On March 23, 1987, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with injunction with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, docketed as Civil Case No. 87-39946, seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the writ. The RTC issued a restraining order on March 26, 1987, but it was received by the sheriff and private respondent after the public auction sale had been concluded, with private respondent as the sole bidder.
On August 7, 1987, the RTC rendered a decision granting the petition, declaring the MTC’s orders and the execution sale null and void, and ordering the return of the properties and restoration of possession to petitioners. Private respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the RTC decision on August 5, 1988, reinstating the MTC decision. Petitioners assail this Court of Appeals decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC decision and reinstating the MTC decision, particularly regarding the propriety of the immediate execution of the ejectment judgment and the necessity of a supersedeas bond.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, subject to a modification. The Court held that the MTC decision was immediately executory under Section 8, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court because petitioners did not file a supersedeas bond to stay execution. The purpose of the supersedeas bond is to assure the plaintiff that rents, damages, and costs accruing up to the time of the judgment appealed from will be paid. The Court found that the MTC decision did order the payment of a sum representing unpaid down payment, installments, and other charges, which constituted “rents” or compensation for the use and occupation of the premises, making a supersedeas bond necessary to stay execution.
The Court further ruled that the RTC, in the certiorari proceeding, exceeded its jurisdiction by nullifying the MTC’s orders and the execution sale. Certiorari is not a substitute for appeal, and the RTC should have dismissed the petition for certiorari as the MTC did not act without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The proper remedy for petitioners was to appeal the MTC decision to the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, not to file a petition for certiorari. The Court of Appeals correctly reversed the RTC decision. However, the Supreme Court modified the Court of Appeals decision by deleting the portion reinstating the MTC decision, as the MTC decision had already been executed and the appeal was deemed abandoned due to petitioners’ failure to file the required supersedeas bond and record on appeal.