G.R. No. L-3749; June 23, 1950
P. M. SILVA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ESTANISLAO DE OCAMPO, respondents.

FACTS

During the pendency of an unlawful detainer (desahucio) appeal before the Court of Appeals, the defendant-appellant P. M. Silva made tardy deposits of the monthly rents adjudged by the trial court. The deposits for November 1949, December 1949, and January 1950 were made on December 13, January 12, and February 13, respectively, all after the 10th-day deadline prescribed by Section 8, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court. The plaintiff-appellee Estanislao de Ocampo initially filed a motion to withdraw these deposits upon filing a bond. However, upon discovering the tardiness of the deposits, he instead filed a petition for immediate execution of the appealed judgment. The Court of Appeals granted the execution. Silva then filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition to annul that order.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly ordered the execution of the judgment due to the appellant’s failure to deposit the monthly rents on or before the 10th day of each month as required by Rule 72.

RULING

Yes. The petition is denied. The Supreme Court held that Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 72 mandate the issuance of a writ of execution if the defendant-appellant fails to make the monthly rental deposit on time. This requirement is mandatory, and the court has no discretion to grant extensions. The appellee’s initial motion to withdraw the deposits did not constitute consent to or ratification of the tardy payments, as it was filed before he discovered the default and was subsequently denied by the court. Furthermore, the law does not require the appellee to move for execution immediately upon default; the right to seek execution for untimely deposits is not forfeited by delay. The dissenting opinion argued that the appellee’s failure to move for execution immediately upon each default constituted a waiver of the right, but the majority did not adopt this view.

AI Generated by Armztrong.