GR L 2088; (September, 1948) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2088; September 9, 1948
MAGDALENO MENESES, PETRONILA MENESES and PASCUALA BIGTING, petitioners, vs. RAFAEL DINGLASAN, Judge of First Instance of Manila, L. PASICOLAN, Sheriff of Manila, FELICIDAD PATIO, and BRIGIDO VALENCIA, respondents.
FACTS
Respondents Felicidad Patio and Brigido Valencia were lessees of a lot from the City of Manila, on which they built a structure that was destroyed during the war. After liberation, they constructed a makeshift barong-barong on the same lot. Petitioners, claiming to be the builders and occupants of the barong-barong, were sued for detainer by respondents in the municipal court. The municipal court ruled in favor of respondents, ordering petitioners to vacate and pay monthly compensation of P17 (P10 for the use of the barong-barong and P7 for the lot rent). Petitioners appealed to the Court of First Instance but failed to deposit the monthly compensation for November and December 1947 as required by the Rules. Respondents moved for execution of the municipal court’s judgment, which was granted by respondent Judge Dinglasan. The barong-barong was subsequently demolished. Petitioners filed this certiorari and injunction case, arguing that the execution was improper because they owned the barong-barong and that the municipal court erred in awarding compensation not specifically prayed for in the complaint.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the execution of the municipal court’s judgment in the detainer case pending appeal.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court held that the execution was lawful and mandatory under Rule 72, Section 8 of the Rules of Court, which requires an appellant in a detainer case to periodically deposit the rental or reasonable compensation for use and occupation as determined by the municipal court during the pendency of the appeal to stay execution. Petitioners’ failure to make the required deposits for November and December 1947 entitled respondents to immediate execution. The municipal court’s award of P17 as “damages” was proper as it constituted reasonable compensation for use and occupation, which is encompassed within the relief available in detainer cases. The petitioners’ claim of ownership over the barong-barong did not excuse compliance with the deposit requirement pending appeal, as the municipal court had already found the structure to belong to respondents. The petition for certiorari was dismissed and the petition for injunction was denied.
AI Generated by Armztrong.