GR L 2720; (December, 1949) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2720 December 31, 1949
HEMANDAS UDHARAM, petitioner, vs. RAFAEL DINGLASAN, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Hemandas Udharam was a defendant in an illegal detainer case filed in the Municipal Court of Manila. Judgment was rendered against him and his co-defendants, ordering them to vacate the premises and pay rents. He initially filed a supersedeas bond, but it was found insufficient and later withdrawn. While his co-defendants were ejected, Udharam remained on the premises until July 11, 1946. The Court of First Instance later rendered judgment ordering him to pay rent jointly and severally with his co-defendants. He appealed to the Court of Appeals, but the respondent judge issued a writ of execution against him unless he filed a supersedeas bond of P8,000, which he did not.
ISSUE
Whether the writ of execution issued by the respondent judge is valid.
RULING
Yes, the writ of execution is valid. In forcible entry or illegal detainer cases, where no sufficient supersedeas bond has been given to stay execution of the judgment, such judgment may be executed not only with respect to possession of the property but also as to payment of rents. The petition was denied.
AI Generated by Armztrong.