G.R. No. L-2245; May 20, 1949
AMBROSIO CARBUNGCO, petitioner, vs. RAFAEL AMPARO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Ambrosio Carbungco filed a forcible entry and detainer case against Vicenta Foz in the Manila municipal court, which ruled in his favor. Foz appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI). During the appeal, Foz failed to deposit the rental for April 1948 within the first ten days of May 1948 as required by Rule 72, section 8 of the Rules of Court. She made the deposit on May 13, 1948, three days late. Carbungco moved for execution of the judgment due to this failure. Respondent Judge Rafael Amparo denied the motion, citing that the deposit had been made. Carbungco’s motion for reconsideration was also denied, prompting this petition for mandamus to compel execution.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for execution despite the appellant’s failure to deposit the monthly rental within the period fixed by law.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition for mandamus. The requirement under Rule 72, section 8 for the appellant to deposit the monthly rental within the first ten days of each month is mandatory. Failure to comply, even by a short delay, gives the appellee the right to execution pending appeal, and the court has no discretion to extend the period or relieve the appellant of the consequences. The Court distinguished prior cases involving tenants protected against ejectment for non-deliberate non-payment, noting that here, the failure appeared deliberate and no explanation was given. The respondent judge or the presiding judge of the CFI is commanded to order the execution of the appealed judgment.

AI Generated by Armztrong.