G.R. No. L-29096 February 23, 1978
AMADO DEHESA and ISABEL IRADIER DEHESA, petitioners, vs. HON. FELIX V. MACALALAG, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Aklan, ILUMINADA P. RAMPOLA, EUSTAQUIO P. RAMPOLA and QUERUBIN B. CORTES, Provincial Sheriff of Aklan, respondents.

FACTS

The spouses Amado and Isabel Dehesa were defendants in an ejectment case filed by the spouses Iluminada and Eustaquio Rampola concerning a nipa house on a residential lot in Banga, Aklan. The Municipal Court of Banga rendered a decision ordering the Dehesa spouses to vacate the premises, restore possession to the Rampolas, and pay back rentals. The Dehesas appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) and posted a supersedeas bond. Subsequently, the Rampola spouses moved for execution of the municipal court’s judgment, alleging that the Dehesas failed to deposit the current monthly rentals during the pendency of the appeal. The Dehesas opposed, arguing that the municipal court’s judgment did not fix the monthly rental for their continued stay and moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, having raised the issue of ownership.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the Court of First Instance acted correctly in ordering execution for the petitioners’ failure to deposit current rentals during appeal, and (2) whether the municipal court lost jurisdiction over the ejectment case because the defendants raised the issue of ownership.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the CFI’s order of execution. The legal logic is anchored on Section 8, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. To stay execution pending appeal in an ejectment case, a defendant must perfect an appeal, file a supersedeas bond, and deposit the current rentals as found by the municipal court. The Court ruled that the deposit of current rentals is a mandatory requirement separate from the supersedeas bond. The fact that the dispositive portion of the municipal court’s decision did not explicitly order payment of future rentals did not excuse the petitioners from this obligation. Their act of posting a supersedeas bond constituted a commitment to comply with all conditions for a stay, including the rental deposits. Failure to make these deposits generally makes the duty of the CFI to order execution ministerial and imperative, as it prevents further damage to the plaintiff. Regarding the jurisdictional issue, the Court held that an ejectment suit is primarily concerned with possession de facto. A defendant’s claim of ownership does not divest the inferior court of its jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case; such a claim must be asserted in a separate action. Furthermore, as lessees, the petitioners are estopped from denying their landlord’s title at the commencement of the lease relation.