G.R. No. L-18588. October 31, 1962.
INES R. DE PAGES, INES VDA. DE JOSE RODRIGUEZ, in her capacity as administratrix of the Estate of Jose Rodriguez, et al., petitioners, vs. HON. MATEO CANONOY, in his capacity as presiding Judge of the Third Branch of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, MARCIANO LAURENTE and DIEGO CAÑIZARES, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners, as administrators of several estates, filed an unlawful detainer case in the Municipal Court of Cebu City against respondents Marciano Laurente and Diego Cañizares. The municipal court ruled in favor of the petitioners, ordering the respondents to vacate the premises, pay back rentals, attorney’s fees, costs, and current monthly rentals until possession is restored. The respondents appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI). The petitioners then moved for immediate execution of the municipal court’s judgment, citing the respondents’ failure to file a supersedeas bond and to pay or deposit the current monthly rentals as required by Section 8, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court. The respondent judge granted execution only for the current rentals from March 1961 onward. He also gave the respondents a five-day period to file a supersedeas bond for the back rentals, failing which execution for that amount would also issue. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, arguing they were entitled to execution for ejectment, back rentals, attorney’s fees, and costs as a matter of right due to the respondents’ non-compliance. The respondent judge denied the motion, ruling he had discretion to allow a belated bond and that payment of current rents negated the right to immediate possession.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the petitioners’ motion for immediate execution of the municipal court’s judgment in its entirety.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari and mandamus. The Court ruled that in unlawful detainer cases, an appealing defendant’s failure to file a supersedeas bond and to pay or deposit the current rentals as they fall due confers upon the plaintiff a clear, absolute right to a writ of execution for both the restoration of possession and the payment of accrued and accruing rents. This right is ministerial and imperative upon the court; the judge has no discretion to deny it or to grant the defendant an extension to comply. The respondent judge’s orders, which partially granted execution and allowed a period for filing the bond, constituted a refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law and thus a grave abuse of discretion. The Court rejected the argument that the case was moot due to a subsequent CFI decision in the petitioners’ favor, noting there was no showing that decision had become final and executory. Consequently, the challenged orders were set aside and the respondent judge was ordered to issue the writ of execution for the municipal court’s judgment.