G.R. No. L-9990; February 1, 1915
MATEA CAPUNU, applicant, vs. JULIO LLORENTE, Judge of First Instance, CONRADO R. GWEKOH, justice of the peace, DOLORES FERNANDEZ Y RICO and her husband, WALTER BRUGMANN, respondents.

FACTS:
Applicant Matea Capunu was the defendant in a summary action for ejectment (recovery of possession of land) for non-payment of rent, filed in the justice of the peace court of Tarlac. The judgment rendered against her ordered her to vacate the premises, pay P4 as rent for January and February 1914, and continue paying P2 monthly until she vacated. Capunu appealed the judgment to the Court of First Instance (CFI). During the pendency of the appeal, the rent for March 1914 became due within the first ten days of April. Capunu failed to pay this rent. The plaintiffs (respondents) moved to dismiss the appeal pursuant to Section 88 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires an appellant in such cases to pay the monthly rent as it falls due. The CFI granted the motion, dismissed the appeal, declared the judgment of the justice’s court final, and ordered the record remanded for execution. Capunu then filed this application for a writ of certiorari, challenging the CFI’s order.

ISSUE:
Which court has the authority to execute the judgment of the justice’s court after the appeal is dismissed for failure to pay rent during its pendencythe Court of First Instance or the justice’s court?

RULING:
The Supreme Court DENIED the application for certiorari and DISMISSED the proceeding. The Court held that the authority to execute the revived judgment lies with the justice’s court, not the CFI. Section 88 of the Code of Civil Procedure expressly provides that upon dismissal of the appeal for non-payment of rent, “the judgment of the justice of the peace” is revived and “may thereupon be enforced by execution as though no appeal had been taken.” The language is clear and unambiguous: the dismissal restores the judgment to the same status as if no appeal had been interposed, thereby vesting execution power in the court that originally rendered itthe justice’s court. The Court cited its prior decision in Carranceja vs. Moir affirming the CFI’s duty and authority to dismiss an appeal under such circumstances.