G.R. No. L-49004 and G.R. No. L-50188, November 10, 1982
Ng Lit, petitioner, vs. The Honorable Francisco R. Llamas, et al. and The Honorable Enrique Agana, Sr., et al., respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Patria Juguilon filed an ejectment complaint against petitioner Ng Lit in the City Court of Pasay for non-payment of rentals. The court ruled in Juguilon’s favor, ordering Ng Lit to vacate, pay arrears, and cover attorney’s fees. Ng Lit filed a notice of appeal to the Court of First Instance (CFI), which was approved by the city court. However, Juguilon moved for execution on the ground that Ng Lit failed to file a supersedeas bond. The city court granted the motion for execution while simultaneously reiterating its approval of the appeal.
In the consolidated petitions, Ng Lit assails the writ of execution issued by the city court and a subsequent writ issued by the CFI. The Supreme Court initially issued a temporary restraining order and, in a resolution, directed Ng Lit to file a supersedeas bond and make monthly rental deposits with the CFI during the appeal’s pendency. Ng Lit complied but was allegedly delayed in his deposit for January 1979. The CFI subsequently granted Juguilon’s motion for execution based on this delay.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the respondent judges acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the execution of the ejectment judgments due to Ng Lit’s alleged failure to comply with the mandatory deposit requirements during the appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, ruling that the orders of execution were valid and mandatory. The legal logic is anchored on the specific provisions governing ejectment appeals under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. The Court clarified that an appeal in an ejectment case does not vacate the inferior court’s judgment. For the appeal to stay execution, the appellant must perfect the appeal and file a supersedeas bond and deposit the accruing rentals or the reasonable value of the premises’ use on or before the tenth day of each month.
The Court found that Ng Lit failed to make the monthly deposit for January 1979 on time, as evidenced by an official receipt showing a combined payment for January and February made on February 19, 1979. This delay, however minimal, triggered the plaintiff’s right to immediate execution as a matter of law. The rules on these deposits are mandatory and jurisdictional; the appellate court possesses no discretion to extend the period or excuse the delay except in cases of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, which were not present here. Consequently, the respondent judges correctly issued the writs of execution for Ng Lit’s failure to comply with the indispensable conditions to stay the execution pending appeal.