G.R. No. L-18860 November 30, 1963
CARLOS AVENDAÑO, petitioner, vs. HON. LADISLAO PASICOLAN, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, LORETO SALONGA and ABELARDO SALONGA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Carlos Avendaño was ordered by the Justice of the Peace Court of Lubao, Pampanga, in an unlawful detainer case, to vacate a fishpond and to pay an annual rental of P2,000.00 from March 1, 1955, until restitution. Avendaño appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI). To stay execution pending appeal, he made yearly deposits of the rental amount with the court. Respondents, the Salongas, filed multiple motions for immediate execution, alleging Avendaño failed to deposit the annual rentals within the first ten days of March each year as purportedly required. Avendaño consistently opposed, arguing that Section 8, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court, which mandates monthly deposits within the first ten days of each month, does not apply to cases involving yearly rentals for agricultural lands like fishponds.
The respondent judge initially denied the motions, finding substantial compliance. However, in an order dated June 7, 1961, the judge granted execution, ruling that Avendaño’s deposit on March 29, 1961, violated Section 8, Rule 72, the JP court’s judgment, and a prior court admonition to pay within the first ten days of March. Avendaño filed this petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the immediate execution of the judgment for failure to deposit the yearly rental within the first ten days of March, pursuant to Section 8, Rule 72.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court held that Section 8, Rule 72, which allows execution pending appeal if a defendant fails to pay the reasonable value for the use and occupation of the premises on or before the tenth day of each calendar month for the preceding month, contemplates payment on a monthly basis. The provision finds no application where, as here, the rental fixed by the court is on a yearly basis. The JP court’s judgment ordered payment of P2,000.00 per annum from March 1, 1955. The date “March 1” was merely the starting point of the annual liability, not a directive for payment within the first ten days of March each year. The nature of a fishpond operation, which yields harvest generally on a yearly basis and for which rentals are typically computed annually, supports this interpretation. The Court cited the precedent in De la Cruz v. Dollete, which involved identical circumstances, to conclude that the order of execution was premature as the yearly rental was not yet due under the terms of the judgment. Consequently, the CFI’s order for immediate execution was erroneous. However, the petition was ultimately dismissed because a final judgment on the merits ordering Avendaño’s ejectment had already been rendered by the lower court, making the issue on the propriety of the interlocutory execution moot.