G.R. No. L-30335 November 29, 1971
MAURECIO BORDEN and ADELA DE BORDEN, petitioners, vs. HON. AGAPITO HONTANOSAS, Presiding Judge of Branch XI (Bantayan, Cebu), Court of First Instance of Cebu, respondents.

FACTS

Ramon Torralba filed an ejectment case against spouses Maurecio and Adela Borden in the City Court of Cebu, alleging they deprived him of possession of a portion of his lot in 1952 through stealth and intimidation. The Bordens, in their answer, admitted occupancy but claimed they paid rentals to Torralba from 1953 to 1966 before deciding to lease the property from the provincial government. They raised lack of jurisdiction as an affirmative defense, arguing the action was filed more than one year from the alleged illegal entry. The City Court treated the action as one for unlawful detainer, finding the one-year period should be counted from the date of demand, which allegedly occurred within the year prior to filing. After an ex parte hearing due to the Bordens’ non-appearance, judgment was rendered against them.
The Bordens appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI). Torralba moved for immediate execution of the City Court’s judgment due to the Bordens’ failure to file a supersedeas bond and deposit monthly rentals as required by Rule 70. The CFI granted execution. The Bordens opposed, filing motions for a preliminary injunction to stop execution and to dismiss the case outright, both anchored on the City Court’s alleged lack of jurisdiction. The CFI denied these motions, holding the jurisdictional issue required evidentiary support and deferring its resolution. The Bordens then filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent CFI judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in granting immediate execution of the City Court’s judgment and in denying the petitioners’ motions to dismiss and for injunction, all based on the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the inferior court.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The legal logic is twofold. First, on the procedural issue of immediate execution, Section 8, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court mandates immediate execution of a judgment in an ejectment case adverse to the defendant, even if on appeal, upon failure to file a supersedeas bond and deposit the rentals. This rule is mandatory. The Bordens’ failure to comply rendered the CFI’s order for execution ministerial and correct. Their raising of a jurisdictional issue on appeal did not exempt them from this procedural requirement, as to hold otherwise would allow parties to easily evade the rule.
Second, on the substantive jurisdictional issue, the Court ruled that the question of whether the City Court had jurisdiction—specifically, whether the action was filed within the one-year period from demand for unlawful detainer—is a matter of evidence. The respondent CFI judge did not abuse his discretion in deferring resolution of this issue until after a hearing on the merits. His orders were therefore valid. The Court found no prejudice to the Bordens, noting the CFI had even been patient and had withheld a demolition order pending the jurisdictional determination. The proper recourse for challenging an order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is certiorari, not an appeal on the main case. Having chosen to appeal, the Bordens were bound by the rules governing such appeals, including Rule 70. The temporary restraining order was dissolved, with the condition that no demolition order be issued unless the City Court’s jurisdiction is ultimately affirmed.