G.R. No. L-7033, November 29, 1955
CHUNG BEN, HONORABLE AGUSTIN P. MONTESA, Presiding Judge of Branch B, Court of First Instance of Manila, and THE SHERIFF OF THE CITY OF MANILA, petitioners, vs. CO BUN KIM, LYDIA TIAO HAN and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Chung Ben filed a detainer complaint against Co Bun Kim and Lydia Tiao Han in the Manila municipal court. Judgment was rendered in favor of Chung Ben, ordering the defendants to vacate the premises, pay arrears in rentals of P2,700 with interest, pay monthly rentals of P300 from July 1, 1953, until vacating, and pay attorney’s fees and costs. The defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila. On July 16, 1953, Chung Ben moved for immediate execution of the judgment, alleging the defendants failed to pay or deposit the rental for July within the first five days of the month as stipulated in their lease contract. The CFI granted the motion on July 18, 1953. The defendants then filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction in the Court of Appeals to annul the order for immediate execution. The Court of Appeals annulled the order on August 31, 1953, ruling that the rent for July was due on or before the 10th day of the succeeding month (August) under Section 8, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court. Chung Ben now seeks a review of this decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in annulling the order for immediate execution, specifically, whether the defendants’ failure to pay or deposit the rental for July within the first five days of that month, as stipulated in their contract, justified immediate execution under Section 8, Rule 72, despite the appellate court’s application of the rule allowing payment on or before the tenth day of the following month.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that Section 8, Rule 72 provides two distinct rules for payment of rent during the pendency of an appeal in an ejectment case: (1) if there is a contract, the defendant must pay the rent due “under the contract, if any, as found by the judgment… to exist”; (2) in the absence of a contract, the defendant must pay “the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the premises… on or before the tenth day of each calendar month” for the preceding month. Although the dispositive part of the municipal court’s judgment did not expressly mention the lease contract, the parties did not deny the existence of a contract stipulating payment in advance within the first five days of each month. Therefore, the applicable rule is the first part of Section 8, Rule 72, requiring payment according to the contract terms. Since the defendants failed to pay or deposit the July rental by July 5, 1953, as agreed, the CFI correctly ordered immediate execution. The Court cited the precedent in Peck vs. Concepcion (74 Phil. 653), which upheld execution under similar circumstances where a contract existed, even if the judgment did not explicitly mention it. The writ of preliminary injunction issued by the Court of Appeals was dissolved. Costs were imposed against the private respondents.