G.R. No. 117667 . March 18, 1996.
INLAND TRAILWAYS, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ROBERTO L. MAKALINTAL, REYNALDO T. NEPOMUCENO and SOLAR RESOURCES, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Solar Resources, Inc. filed an ejectment complaint against petitioner Inland Trailways, Inc. for non-payment of rent. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) ruled in favor of Solar, ordering Inland’s ejectment and payment of rental arrears. Inland received the MTC decision on June 3, 1994, and filed a Notice of Appeal on June 7, 1994. Solar then filed a Motion for Immediate Execution under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. Due to Inland’s failure to post the required supersedeas bond, the MTC issued a Writ of Execution on June 30, 1994.
Inland challenged the writ via a Petition for Certiorari in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), arguing the MTC lost jurisdiction to issue it because Solar’s motion for execution was filed one day late on June 24, 1994, beyond the 15-day period to perfect an appeal. Solar countered that the motion was filed on June 22, 1994, within the jurisdictional period. The RTC dismissed Inland’s petition, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court can review the factual finding on the date of filing of the Motion for Immediate Execution, and consequently, whether the MTC had jurisdiction to issue the Writ of Execution.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The core issue—the actual filing date of the motion for execution—is a pure question of fact. Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law are generally reviewable by the Supreme Court. The factual findings of the Court of Appeals, which concurred with the RTC in finding that the motion was filed on June 22, 1994, are binding and conclusive. There was no reason to disturb these findings.
Given the established filing date of June 22, 1994, the MTC retained jurisdiction when it granted the motion and issued the writ. Furthermore, the execution was proper and ministerial. Under Section 8, Rule 70, a judgment in an ejectment case favorable to the plaintiff is immediately executory. The defendant may stay execution only by perfecting an appeal, filing a supersedeas bond, and making periodic deposits of rent during the appeal’s pendency. Inland perfected its appeal but failed to file the mandatory supersedeas bond. This failure rendered the issuance of the writ not only proper but unavoidable.