G.R. No. L-32. October 18, 1945.
CARMEN TOLENTINO, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA and JOSEFA VDA. DE ALTONAGA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Carmen Tolentino filed a complaint for desahucio (ejectment) against respondent Josefa Vda. de Altonaga in the Municipal Court of Manila, based on the termination of a verbal lease and the respondent’s failure to pay rent for several months. The municipal court rendered judgment ordering Altonaga to vacate the premises and pay monthly rental arrears. Altonaga appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI), depositing the docket fee, appeal bond, and an amount covering rents for March to June 1945, but she did not file a supersedeas bond to stay execution. Tolentino moved for immediate execution of the appealed judgment due to this failure. The CFI Judge, Pompeyo Diaz, denied the motion and instead required Altonaga to file a supersedeas bond of P700 within five days, which she complied with. Tolentino sought reconsideration, arguing that the CFI had no power to fix or admit a bond at that stage, and upon denial, filed this petition for mandamus to compel immediate execution.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance has the authority to permit an appellant in an ejectment case to file a supersedeas bond for the first time on appeal, after failing to file one in the municipal court, thereby staying the execution of the judgment for restitution.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition. It held that the CFI has the power to allow the filing of a supersedeas bond on appeal, even if not initially filed in the municipal court. Rule 72, Section 8 of the Rules of Court, which governs ejectment cases, provides that execution shall issue immediately unless an appeal is perfected and the defendant files a sufficient bond approved by the municipal court to stay execution. The Court interpreted this rule liberally, in line with Rule 1, Section 2, to promote just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of actions. It cited Igama vs. Soria (42 Phil. 11), which sustained the CFI’s discretion to permit the filing of the bond on appeal. The Court clarified that Felipe vs. Teodoro (46 Phil. 409) did not reverse this doctrine, as in that case, no bond was filed at all, and the appellants objected to filing one. Here, the respondent promptly complied with the CFI’s order to file the bond. Thus, the respondent judge’s order was valid, and mandamus did not lie. No costs were awarded.
Separate Opinion:
Justice Paras concurred, noting that the deposit made by the appellant was equivalent to, if not better than, a supersedeas bond.