GR L 55377; (October, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-55377 October 18, 1988
BENJAMIN DEL ROSARIO and CONSTANCIA DEL ROSARIO, petitioners, vs. HON. CECILIO F. BALAGOT etc., and the SPOUSES JUANITO MAGNO and ROSITA GONZALES, respondents.
FACTS
The Spouses Magno filed an unlawful detainer case against the Spouses del Rosario in the Municipal Court of Solano, Nueva Vizcaya. The del Rosarios were declared in default for non-appearance, and judgment was rendered against them, ordering them to vacate and pay damages. Instead of appealing this judgment, the del Rosarios filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of First Instance (CFI), alleging denial of due process. The CFI dismissed their petition, ruling certiorari was not a substitute for a lost appeal. The del Rosarios then filed a notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal from the CFI’s dismissal order.
While the CFI had yet to approve the record on appeal and bond, the Magnos moved for immediate execution of the Municipal Court’s ejectment judgment. The new presiding judge, respondent Judge Balagot, granted the motion for execution pending appeal. He cited three grounds: the court retained jurisdiction as the appeal was not yet perfected due to the pending approval of the record on appeal and bond; the leased house was in danger of deterioration; and the del Rosarios had not posted a supersedeas bond.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in granting execution pending appeal.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, sustaining the challenged order. The legal logic is clear and multi-faceted. First, the Court found the del Rosarios had no right to continue occupancy. Their written lease had a fixed term that expired. Their claim of an implied new lease (tacita reconduccion) was baseless, as the lessors had served a formal demand to vacate and later filed an ejectment suit, which precludes such implication.
Second, and crucially, the Municipal Court’s judgment had become final and executory against the del Rosarios. They received notice of the judgment but failed to perfect a timely appeal. Their subsequent petition for certiorari in the CFI was an improper remedy, as certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal. Since the judgment was final, the winning parties (the Magnos) were entitled to execution as a matter of right under Rule 39. Therefore, the question of discretionary execution pending appeal became moot.
Third, the Court addressed the procedural argument on appeal perfection. Under the then-governing 1964 Rules of Court, an appeal was perfected only upon court approval of the record on appeal and appeal bond. Since such approval was pending, the trial court retained jurisdiction and had the power to order execution pending appeal under Rule 39, Section 2. The del Rosarios’ claim that mere filing perfected the appeal was erroneous. Consequently, the respondent judge acted within his jurisdiction in issuing the order for execution pending appeal.