G.R. No. L-19701; June 30, 1964
PASTOR ACIBO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. HIGINIO MACADAEG, MARIA PAZ MENDOZA-GUAZON, and SHERIFF OF MANILA, respondents.

FACTS

Dr. Maria Paz Mendoza-Guazon filed an ejectment suit against 56 persons, including the 31 petitioners, in the Manila Municipal Court. The court ruled in her favor, ordering the defendants to vacate the land and pay back rents. The defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila but failed to file the required supersedeas bond or make deposits for current rents. Consequently, upon Mendoza-Guazon’s motion, the CFI ordered the immediate execution of the appealed judgment.
Subsequently, the petitioners moved for a 10-day period to file a supersedeas bond and to suspend execution. Mendoza-Guazon opposed this and sought a demolition order. Without waiting for the court’s resolution, 31 defendants filed supersedeas bonds. The CFI, however, denied the motion to suspend execution, disapproved the bonds, and ordered the demolition of the houses. The sheriff, after initially delaying, carried out the demolition. This petition for certiorari and prohibition was filed to annul the demolition order and compel approval of the bonds.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in: (1) refusing to suspend execution and approve the supersedeas bonds; and (2) ordering demolition without a hearing, proper service, and reasonable time for petitioners to remove their houses.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. On the first issue, the Court held that under Section 8, Rule 70 (now Rule 70, Section 8) of the Rules of Court, immediate execution of a judgment in an ejectment case is mandatory when the defendant appeals but fails to file an approved supersedeas bond and to periodically deposit the rents fixed by the inferior court. The duty of the court to order execution under such circumstances is ministerial. The petitioners’ reliance on cases suggesting judicial discretion to allow a late bond was misplaced. The cited authorities establish that the CFI has discretion to grant or deny a motion for extension to file a bond; it is not a duty. Here, the petitioners did not initially ask for time to file a bond but instead opposed execution on an incorrect legal premise. The respondent judge did not abuse his discretion in denying their belated motion and disapproving the bonds.
On the second issue, the Court found no denial of due process or violation of Rule 39 (now Rule 39, Section 14) regarding demolition. A hearing was duly set for the motion for demolition and the opposition; the court’s act of considering the matter submitted based on the pleadings, without oral argument, was permissible. The claim of lack of service of the demolition order was inconsequential, as such an order is not appealable, and the issuance of the corresponding writ need not await service. Finally, the petitioners were given reasonable time, as the writ was served on April 17 but enforced only on April 26, providing them ample opportunity to comply voluntarily.