G.R. No. L-13446; September 30, 1960
Maximo Sison, petitioner, vs. Hon. Froilan Bayona, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Maximo Sison was the lessee of a parcel of land in Sampaloc, Manila, on which he built a house. On February 9, 1954, the lessor, Mauro Prieto, filed an ejectment case against Sison in the Municipal Court of Manila for nonpayment of rentals. On April 12, 1954, the municipal court rendered judgment ordering Sison to pay unpaid rentals of P200.28 and future rentals at P8.00 per month until vacating the property, plus attorney’s fees and costs. Sison appealed to the Court of First Instance. In his answer, Sison alleged he had occupied the property for about 10 years, never refused to pay rentals, and made improvements worth P6,000.00. Due to Sison’s failure to file a supersedeas bond, Prieto moved for execution of the judgment, including demolition of Sison’s house. The court, on September 12, 1957, ordered Sison to deposit P137.00 (representing rental arrears) within 15 days, warning that failure would result in execution and demolition. Sison complied by depositing the amount on September 23, 1957. On December 3, 1957, due to Sison’s failure to file a supersedeas bond and to deposit accruing rentals as per the municipal court’s judgment, Prieto again moved for execution and demolition. The court granted this motion on December 10, 1957. Sison moved to quash the order, stating he had deposited the required amount and that the lot was already included in expropriation proceedings by the Land Tenure Administration under Republic Act No. 1162 , as amended. The motion was denied. After failed reconsideration, Sison filed this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order of execution and demolition despite Sison’s deposit of the P137.00 rental arrears.

RULING

No. The petition is denied. The trial court did not commit an abuse of discretion. The procedure for staying execution of an ejectment judgment pending appeal under Rule 72, Section 8 of the Rules of Court is mandatory. A defendant may stay execution by: (1) perfecting an appeal and filing a supersedeas bond to secure payment of back rentals, damages, and costs adjudged; and (2) paying periodically to the plaintiff or depositing with the Court of First Instance, during the pendency of the appeal, the accruing rentals or the reasonable value of the use and occupation as fixed in the judgment. A supersedeas bond answers only for the back rentals fixed in the judgment, not for accruing rentals during appeal, which are secured by periodic deposits. Here, Sison failed to file a supersedeas bond. Although he made partial deposits for accruing rentals, these were consistently insufficient. The trial court’s initial order of September 12, 1957, allowing him to deposit the P137.00 to cover both arrears and accruing rentals, was a misinterpretation of the law. The correct procedure entitled the plaintiff to an immediate writ of execution due to Sison’s non-compliance. The court rectified this error by later issuing the writ. Regarding the expropriation proceedings, while Republic Act No. 1162 , as amended, may suspend ejectment cases for two years, Section 5 of the Act limits this benefit to defendants who pay their current rentals. Sison, being a delinquent tenant, is not entitled to this suspension. The writ of injunction issued by the Supreme Court is dissolved. No costs.