GR L 42364; (April, 1987) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-42364 April 9, 1987
CITY OF MANILA, HON. JOSE B. JIMENEZ, and the CITY SHERIFF OF MANILA, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and AUGUSTO SANTOS, respondents.
FACTS
The City of Manila, as lessor, filed an ejectment case against lessee Augusto Santos after the expiration of their lease contract for market stalls. The City sought to increase the rentals, which Santos refused to pay, leading to his refusal to vacate. The City Court rendered a judgment ordering Santos to pay specified increased rental rates. The judgment further stipulated that failure to pay any rent on its due date would entitle the City to a writ of execution for both ejectment and collection. The City of Manila, dissatisfied with the rental rates fixed, appealed the decision to the Court of First Instance (CFI).
During the pendency of this appeal, and without filing a supersedeas bond, the City moved for immediate execution of the City Court’s judgment, citing Santos’s continued refusal to pay the adjudicated rents. Santos opposed, arguing the judgment was conditional, requiring a separate hearing on his justification for non-payment, and that execution pending appeal was improper as the appealing lessor had not filed a supersedeas bond. The CFI granted the writ of execution.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance correctly granted execution of the City Court’s judgment pending the lessor’s appeal.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court reinstated the writ of execution. The Court rejected the Court of Appeals’ ruling that Section 8, Rule 70 (on execution pending appeal in ejectment cases) applies only when the lessee appeals. The legal logic establishes that the rule’s purpose—to prevent the lessee from occupying the premises without paying rents adjudged due—applies regardless of which party appeals. If the lessee, by not appealing, acquiesces to the accrued and accruing rentals fixed by the inferior court, he cannot continue possession without complying with the bond and deposit requirements to stay execution. The lessee’s continued stay without such deposit constitutes a “special reason” justifying execution pending appeal under Rule 39. The Court expressly reversed the contrary doctrine in Cruz v. Jugo. Consequently, Santos was ordered to vacate and pay the fixed rentals with interest.