G.R. No. 113886 February 24, 1998
SPOUSES MARCIANO CHUA and CHUA CHO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES MARIANO C. MORENO and SHEILA MORENO, respondents.

FACTS

The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Batangas City rendered a judgment on March 5, 1993, ordering the ejectment of petitioners Spouses Marciano Chua and Chua Cho from four lots and directing them to pay monthly rentals and attorney’s fees. Petitioners received a copy of the decision on March 10, 1993, and filed a notice of appeal on March 11, 1993. The MTC transmitted the records to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on March 16, 1993. On March 29, 1993, private respondents Spouses Mariano C. Moreno and Sheila Moreno moved for immediate execution of the judgment, alleging petitioners failed to file a supersedeas bond or make deposits as required by Rule 70, Section 8 of the Rules of Court. Petitioners opposed, claiming co-ownership of the lots and later supplementing that they were willing to file a bond but were busy with their businesses. On June 10, 1993, the RTC denied the motion for execution and directed petitioners to file a supersedeas bond of P550,000, deposit accrued rentals, and make periodic deposits. On June 17, 1993, the RTC granted petitioners a five-day extension to file the bond. Petitioners eventually filed a cash bond, later substituted with a surety bond on September 20, 1993. Private respondents filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which set aside the RTC orders of June 10 and 17, 1993, and ordered the issuance of a writ of execution, ruling that the supersedeas bond was filed out of time and the RTC had no discretion to extend the period.

ISSUE

Whether the RTC had the authority to set the amount of and accept a supersedeas bond to stay the immediate execution of a judgment in an ejectment suit pending appeal after the expiration of the period for perfecting the appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The filing of a supersedeas bond to stay execution under Rule 70, Section 8 is mandatory and must be done within the period for perfecting an appeal. The bond is a condition sine qua non for staying execution, and the court has no discretion to extend the period for its filing. The amount of the supersedeas bond is computed based on the accrued rents, damages, and costs stated in the MTC judgment, and the defendant must determine and file it without waiting for the court to fix the amount. The bond must be filed with the court that rendered the judgment (MTC) before it loses jurisdiction over the case upon perfection of appeal. In this case, petitioners failed to file the bond within the reglementary period; thus, immediate execution was ministerial. Their excuses of not knowing where to file the bond or its amount, and their claim of co-ownership, did not justify non-compliance. The constitutional issues raised were unsubstantiated, as the ejectment case solely determined possession, not ownership.