G.R. No. L-8960; January 31, 1957
GERONIMO DE LOS REYES, petitioner, vs. MARIA B. CASTRO, and HON. FEDERICO A. ALIKPALA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Laguna (Biñan) and the PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF LAGUNA, respondents.

FACTS

On August 31, 1943, petitioner Geronimo de los Reyes executed a deed of sale with the right to repurchase two parcels of coconut land in favor of respondent Maria B. Castro for P120,000. Simultaneously, Castro leased the land back to de los Reyes at a yearly rental of P7,200, with the first two years’ rentals paid in advance. On October 24, 1947, Castro filed an unlawful detainer complaint in the justice of the peace court of Calauan, Laguna, alleging non-payment of overdue rentals. De los Reyes defended by claiming the transaction was actually an equitable mortgage, not a lease; that he had offered to repay the loan but was refused, leading him to file a case in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 3134) and consign the payment; that Castro fraudulently consolidated ownership; that the court lacked jurisdiction as title was involved; and that another action (Civil Case No. 3910) was pending in the Manila court involving the same land. The justice of the peace court ruled for Castro on October 12, 1949. De los Reyes appealed to the Court of First Instance of Laguna. On November 11, 1954, Castro moved for immediate execution of the justice of the peace court’s judgment. The Court of First Instance granted the motion on March 16, 1955, noting de los Reyes admitted non-payment of rentals from the judgment date and had filed no supersedeas bond. Writs were issued for collection of rentals and possession of the land. De los Reyes filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance of Laguna committed a grave abuse of discretion in ordering the immediate execution of the judgment of the justice of the peace court in the unlawful detainer case.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari, reversed and set aside the orders of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, and made the preliminary injunction permanent. The majority held the execution under the circumstances constituted an abuse of discretion. While individual Justices had varying grounds, the collective decision was based on the following: (1) Some Justices noted the execution was sought after five years from the justice of the peace judgment, potentially barring it under the five-year rule for execution. (2) Other Justices found reasonable grounds to believe the original contract was an equitable mortgage, not a true sale and lease, especially given the disproportionately low sale price (in Japanese war notes) compared to the land’s alleged value. (3) The pendency of an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila involving the ownership of the same property was a significant factor. (4) Specifically, the opinion emphasized that the provision for immediate execution in unlawful detainer cases under Section 8, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court is not applicable where, as here, the plaintiff’s right to immediate possession is not clear or conclusive because a serious question of title is involved. The summary action of unlawful detainer is meant to preserve possession until ownership or possession rights can be fully tried in due course of law, not to dispossess a party when ownership is genuinely disputed.