G.R. No. 49057 , December 15, 1943
ANDRES RIOS and SIMPLICIO B. PENA, petitioners, vs. JAIME M. REYES, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Albay, and SATURNINO ROS, respondents.

FACTS

1. On October 7, 1936, respondent Saturnino Ros filed a forcible entry and unlawful detainer case against Valeriana Vda. de Velasco in the justice of the peace court of Malinao, Albay. Ros obtained a favorable judgment ordering Velasco to restore possession of the land, return 834 bundles of palay or its value (P150.25), and pay costs.
2. Velasco appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) and filed an appeal bond with petitioners Andres Rios and Simplicio B. Peña as sureties, as required by Section 88 of Act No. 190 , to stay execution pending appeal. The bond obligated the sureties to pay rents, damages, and costs down to the final judgment.
3. The CFI initially dismissed the case, but Ros appealed to the Supreme Court ( G.R. No. 47782 ), which reversed the dismissal and remanded the case, with costs against Velasco.
4. After the Supreme Court decision became final, Ros procured a writ of execution from respondent Judge Jaime M. Reyes in July 1943 against the petitioners as sureties to satisfy the costs awarded by the Supreme Court.
5. Petitioner Simplicio B. Peña, acting as attorney for the defendant and as surety (and also as attorney for co-surety Andres Rios), filed a motion to: (a) set aside the writ of execution, (b) cancel the bond, and (c) dismiss the case. The motion was denied by Judge Reyes on August 19, 1943.
6. Petitioners then filed this certiorari proceeding, arguing that: (a) the case was not forcible entry but “Delivery of Personal Property,” making the bond superfluous; (b) the respondent judge had no jurisdiction to order execution of the bond; and (c) the respondent judge had no jurisdiction over the subject matter after an amended complaint substituted Andres Rios for the deceased original defendant, claiming it changed the nature of the case.

ISSUE

1. Whether the appeal bond posted by the petitioners as sureties can be executed against to satisfy the costs awarded by the Supreme Court.
2. Whether the bond should be canceled on the ground that the complaint did not allege facts sufficient for forcible entry and detainer.
3. Whether the respondent judge had jurisdiction to admit the amended complaint substituting Andres Rios as defendant.

RULING

1. On the execution of the bond: The petition is unmeritorious. The bond was given under Section 88 of Act No. 190 to stay execution of the justice of the peace court’s judgment pending appeal. The bond expressly obligated the sureties to pay “damages and costs down to the time of the final judgment in the action.” The costs awarded by the Supreme Court are included in this obligation. The attempt to evade this obligation based on an irrelevant clause of Section 88 fails. The bond allowed the defendant to remain in possession for over seven years; it would be manifestly unfair to now cancel it to avoid paying costs.
2. On the cancellation of the bond: The attempt to cancel the bond, based on a belated “discovery” that the complaint lacked sufficient allegations for forcible entry, is futile and appears to be a dilatory tactic. After seven years of litigation up to the Supreme Court, such a claim is untenable. The validity of the bond is not affected by this alleged defect, as it was conditioned on payment of costs up to final judgment. The bond was given to stay a validly rendered judgment, and its purpose would be defeated if canceled now.
3. On the amended complaint: The respondent judge acted within his authority and sound discretion in admitting the amended complaint substituting Andres Rios as defendant after the original defendant’s death. No abuse of discretion is found.
4. Disposition: The order of the respondent judge is affirmed. The petition for certiorari is dismissed, with double costs against the petitioners.