G.R. No. L-31822. July 31, 1972.
JOSE SALCEDO QUIMPO, petitioner, vs. CATALINO DELA VICTORIA and FRANCISCA O. DELA VICTORIA, respondents.

FACTS

Respondents filed a complaint for quieting of title and recovery of possession (Civil Case No. 6005) against petitioner in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Davao. Subsequently, they filed a separate action for forcible entry over the same property in the City Court of Davao. Petitioner moved to dismiss the forcible entry case on the ground of litis pendentia, citing the pending CFI case. The City Court denied the motion, reasoning there was no identity of rights and reliefs, and declared petitioner in default for failure to answer. It then rendered a judgment ordering petitioner to vacate and pay monthly rentals.
Petitioner appealed to the CFI, reiterating his motion to dismiss. The CFI, however, denied the motion and granted respondents’ motion for immediate execution of the City Court’s judgment. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and his appeal was subsequently dismissed, prompting this petition for review.

ISSUE

The primary issues are whether the City Court acquired jurisdiction despite an alleged defective verification; whether the forcible entry case should be dismissed due to litis pendentia; and whether the CFI erred in ordering immediate execution.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s orders. On jurisdiction, the Court ruled the verification, while omitting the phrase “of his own knowledge,” was not fatally defective. The requirement is merely formal, not jurisdictional. The affiant, being a party, logically verified based on personal knowledge, and any doubt should have been clarified via a motion for a more definite statement.
On litis pendentia, the Court held the elements were not present. The action for quieting of title in the CFI involves a question of ownership, while the forcible entry case in the City Court is a summary action purely concerned with prior physical possession. The rights asserted and reliefs prayed for are distinct; a judgment in one would not constitute res judicata in the other.
Regarding immediate execution, the Court found it was properly granted. Under the Rules, execution is mandatory in ejectment cases upon appeal unless the appellant files a supersedeas bond and deposits the accrued rentals. Petitioner perfected his appeal but failed to comply with these twin requirements, thus forfeiting his right to stay execution. The award of monthly rental, being a factual finding, was also upheld in the absence of proven abuse of discretion.