G.R. No. L-24665 May 23, 1968
TIBURCIO ALCOBER, APOLONIA ALCOBER and LUCIA ALCOBER, petitioners, vs. HON. HONORATO GARCIANO, Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance, Carigara, Leyte, SATURNINO GARDON, GREGORIA GLER, TRANQUILINO BASEA and HERCULANO BASEA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Tiburcio, Apolonia, and Lucia Alcober (the Alcobers) were defendants in Civil Case No. 433 before the Court of First Instance of Leyte, Carigara. The plaintiffs, respondents Saturnino Gardon and Gregoria Gler, sought to establish their title to a parcel of land and annul the title issued to the Alcobers. Respondents Tranquilino and Herculano Basea (the Baseas) were intervenors. On February 17, 1965, respondent Judge Honorato Garciano rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and the Baseas. The Alcobers filed their notice of appeal on March 10, 1965, and their appeal bond and record on appeal were approved on April 3, 1965. On April 7, 1965, the plaintiffs filed a motion for execution of the decision pending appeal, which was granted by respondent Judge on April 20, 1965. The Alcobers moved for reconsideration and to stay execution, but these were denied. The clerk of court issued a writ of execution on May 24, 1965. The Alcobers then filed the present petition for certiorari to annul the order for execution.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent Judge had jurisdiction to issue the order of April 20, 1965, directing execution of the decision pending appeal, considering that the motion for execution was filed after the perfection of the appeal.

RULING

No, respondent Judge had no jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that the order of April 20, 1965, and the subsequent writ of execution were null and void. Under Section 9 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, upon the approval of the record on appeal and the appeal bond, the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case, except for specific matters not applicable here. The motion for execution pending appeal does not fall under any of the exceptions, as execution involves the very rights litigated in the appeal and its purpose is not to protect and preserve the subject of the litigation. The Court distinguished the cited case of Laurilla vs. Uichangco, where the motion for execution was filed before the perfection of the appeal. It also clarified that the case of Borromeo Bros. Estate Inc. vs. Court of Appeals involved an order for the preservation of an estate, which is an exception under Rule 41, unlike the execution sought in this case. Therefore, the trial court acted without jurisdiction in granting execution after the appeal was perfected.