G.R. No. 49038 ; October 29, 1943
Pedro Arcilla, et al., petitioners, vs. Tecla Vda. de Constancio and Hon. Vicente del Rosario, Judge of First Instance of Camarines Sur, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Tecla Vda. de Constancio sued petitioners in the justice of the peace court of Buhi, Camarines Sur, for forcible entry and unlawful detainer of agricultural land. A writ of preliminary injunction was issued restraining petitioners from disturbing her possession. Judgment was rendered ordering petitioners to restore possession to the respondent, and they appealed to the Court of First Instance. On April 21, 1941, the parties entered an agreement lifting the preliminary injunction and allowing petitioners to remain in possession upon filing a P1,000 bond, conditioned to pay the value of the land’s products if the Court of First Instance confirmed the lower court’s decision in favor of the respondent. On April 30, 1943, the Court of First Instance rendered judgment ordering petitioners to vacate the land and pay P312.50 as damages. The respondent moved for reconsideration, praying for additional damages. The court, in resolving the motion on July 27, 1943, awarded damages only for the 1941-1942 crop-year (P312.50) and declined to award damages for 1942-1943 due to insufficient evidence. The court also stated that the respondent could prove her damages during the pendency of the case until possession was delivered. On July 31, 1943, upon an ex-parte motion by the respondent, the respondent judge issued an order for a writ of execution, requiring petitioners to deliver possession unless they paid the P312.50 and filed a P600 bond guaranteeing payment of annual damages from 1943 until final judgment.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction or abused his discretion in issuing the order for immediate execution pending appeal.

RULING

No. The order of immediate execution was authorized and required by Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 72 (now Rules of Court provisions governing forcible entry and unlawful detainer), which are mandatory. These special rules, not the general provisions on execution (Rule 39) cited by petitioners, govern the case. The bond of P1,000 filed earlier covered only damages up to the decision of the Court of First Instance, not the “rents, damages, and costs down to the time of the final judgment” as required by Rule 72. Therefore, the requirement of a P600 bond to stay execution was neither unjustified nor improper. The Court noted an error in the trial court’s judgment for failing to fix the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the land for the pendency of the appeal, as it should have, but stated this error was not correctable in this certiorari proceeding and should be addressed on appeal. The order was affirmed, and the preliminary injunction issued by the Supreme Court was dissolved.