GR L 1487; (January, 1948) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-1487; January 23, 1948
AMALIA TORRES, petitioner, vs. BUENAVENTURA OCAMPO, Judge of First Instance of Manila, GREGORIO NARVASA, former Vacation Judge of First Instance of Manila and FERNANDO ACEBEDO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Amalia Torres filed a complaint in the Municipal Court of Manila against respondent Fernando Acebedo. She alleged she was awarded the right to occupy stalls in the Sampaloc Market by the City Health Officer, affirmed by the Mayor, but Acebedo refused to vacate despite demands. She sought to recover possession and claimed damages for unrealized income from her business. The municipal court ruled in her favor, ordering Acebedo to vacate and pay damages. Acebedo appealed to the Court of First Instance. Torres moved for execution of the judgment pending appeal under Section 8, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court, arguing Acebedo failed to file a supersedeas bond or make deposits. The respondent judges denied her motions. Torres then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion and failure to perform a ministerial duty.
ISSUE
Whether the action filed by Torres is one for forcible entry or illegal detainer under Rule 72, thereby entitling her to execution pending appeal upon the defendant’s failure to file a supersedeas bond or make deposits.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition. It held that the action was neither forcible entry nor illegal detainer. Forcible entry requires deprivation of possession by force, intimidation, etc., within one year, which did not apply as Torres never entered into possession under the award. Illegal detainer requires a contract, express or implied, between the parties for possession, which was absent. The action was an ordinary civil action to recognize Torres’ preferred right to occupy the market stalls under administrative regulations. In ordinary actions, the judgment of the municipal court is vacated upon appeal and the case is tried de novo in the Court of First Instance; thus, Section 8, Rule 72 on execution pending appeal does not apply. The respondent judges did not commit grave abuse of discretion or fail in a ministerial duty.
AI Generated by Armztrong.