G.R. No. L-653; November 26, 1946
Crispulo Ocampo Leus and Estrella Bautista, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. Cirilo Martin, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

1. Plaintiffs-appellees, owners of a house in Manila, filed an ejectment case against defendant-appellant for non-payment of the monthly rental of P12 for August and September 1945.
2. The Municipal Court of Manila decided in favor of the plaintiffs on October 29, 1945. The defendant appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila.
3. In the CFI, the defendant was declared in default for failure to file an answer. On February 28, 1946, the CFI rendered a decision ordering the defendant to vacate the premises and pay rents in arrears and future rents until he vacates. The defendant appealed again to the Supreme Court.
4. During the appeals, the defendant deposited monthly rentals with the clerks of the Municipal Court, the CFI, and the Supreme Court to stay execution.
5. On August 9, 1946, the plaintiffs filed a petition with the Supreme Court praying that the deposited rental moneys be turned over to them and that the defendant be required to surrender the deposit receipts. The defendant did not file any opposition or answer to this petition.
6. In his brief dated July 24, 1946, the defendant assigned two errors but raised no issue contesting the plaintiffs’ entitlement to collect the rents in question.

ISSUE

Whether the plaintiffs-appellees should be allowed to withdraw the rental moneys deposited by the defendant-appellant with the courts during the pendency of the appeal, prior to the final disposition of the case.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the plaintiffs’ petition to withdraw the deposited rental moneys but DENIED the petition to require the defendant to surrender the deposit receipts.
1. Application of Rules 72, Sections 8 and 9: While these rules state that moneys deposited “for the purposes of stay of execution” shall be held by the court “until the final disposition of the appeal” and “shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the judgment,” the Court has previously allowed the withdrawal of such deposits under specific circumstances. The rules are means to serve the interest of justice, not rigid ends in themselves.
2. Jurisprudence and Established Practice: The Court cited precedents where it granted motions to withdraw deposited rents when the defendant either agreed to the withdrawal or failed to oppose the motion (e.g., Estrella, et al., vs. Sangalang; Reyes vs. Regala, et al.; Borja vs. Bautista; Leus, et al., vs. Valentin). Conversely, it denied such motions when the appellant opposed them on substantive grounds, such as a dispute over ownership or entitlement to the rents (e.g., Bamboa Hilado vs. Schweigert).
3. Rationale for Granting the Petition: The purpose of the deposit requirement under Rule 72 is to protect the defendant from harm if the plaintiff’s right to collect the moneys is genuinely in issue. Where, as in this case, the defendant does not raise any issue regarding the plaintiffs’ entitlement to the rents and fails to oppose the withdrawal petition, there is no harm to protect against. The defendant’s failure to oppose the petition is construed as acquiescence.
4. Disposition: Therefore, the plaintiffs’ petition to withdraw the rents was granted. However, the ancillary request for the defendant to surrender the deposit receipts was deemed groundless and unnecessary.
CONCURRING OPINION (Justice Feria):
Justice Feria concurred in the result but on a different legal ground. He emphasized that under Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 72, the defendant has the right to have the deposited moneys held by the court until final judgment. Allowing withdrawal before final disposition constitutes an unauthorized partial execution. He agreed with the grant of the petition solely because the defendant-appellant, by his failure to oppose it, had impliedly agreed to the withdrawal, which is an exception to the general rule against pre-judgment release of deposits.