G.R. No. L-47830; April 8, 1941
PLACIDO SUMINTAC, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, PEDRO HERNAEZ, and THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL, respondents.

FACTS

In an ejectment suit (Civil Case No. 2870) before the justice of the peace court of Pasay, Rizal, filed by respondent Pedro Hernaez against petitioners Placido Sumintac, et al., judgment was rendered ordering the petitioners to vacate the premises and ordering Hernaez to pay the petitioners several counterclaims totaling P2,480. The petitioners announced their intention to appeal this judgment on August 3, 1940, and paid P25 for a bond and P16 for a filing fee. On August 30, 1940, Hernaez moved for the issuance of a writ of execution based on section 8, Rule 72 of the New Rules of Court. The Court of First Instance of Rizal initially denied this motion on September 2, 1940. However, upon reconsideration, the same court issued an order on September 10, 1940, setting aside its previous order and granting the execution of the justice of the peace court’s judgment, conditioned upon Hernaez posting a bond of P2,480 to answer for the counterclaims awarded to the petitioners. The petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of this order was denied. Subsequently, the court granted Hernaez’s petition for the provincial sheriff to remove or demolish the house and improvements made by the petitioners on the premises, allowing the petitioners thirty days to comply with the order of September 10, 1940. The petitioners then filed this application for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of First Instance of Rizal properly ordered the execution of the judgment of the justice of the peace court under the given facts.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of First Instance properly ordered the execution. Under the mandatory provision of section 8, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court, a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in a detainer (ejectment) case is immediately executory. To stay execution, the defendant must file a sufficient bond to answer for rents, damages, and costs down to the final judgment and must pay, from time to time during the appeal, the amount of rents fixed in the decision. The petitioners’ failure to file such a bond or make the required payments authorized the Court of First Instance, upon motion and proof of nonperformance, to issue execution. The petitioners’ argument that their awarded counterclaims (totaling P2,480) adequately secured the rent they owed (P918) was without merit. The mere existence of a counterclaim does not relieve the petitioners from the duty imposed by the rule to file a bond and make periodic payments to stay execution. Furthermore, the respondent had already posted a bond to answer for the satisfaction of those counterclaims. The writ of certiorari prayed for was denied.