Paulino v. Surtida
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Felix Paulino, Sr., et al. filed an action for forcible entry against Gonzalo Refe, et al. before the Justice of the Peace Court of Sipocot, Camarines Sur. The Justice of the Peace Court ordered the defendants to vacate the land, restore possession to the plaintiffs, pay P1,800.00 as damages, and deposit P450.00 every 45 days as rental for the use and occupation of the land from the rendition of judgment until possession is restored. Procedural History: Defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Camarines Sur and filed a supersedeas bond. The bond was found defective, and despite extensions, a new bond was also found defective. Plaintiffs moved for immediate execution, invoking Section 8, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court. The CFI granted the motion for immediate execution, limiting it to possession and collection of rents in arrears. Defendants' motion for reconsideration was denied. Plaintiffs then prayed for the delivery of periodical deposits made by defendants (totaling P4,950.00) pending appeal, which the CFI denied, stating plaintiffs could not withdraw the money without defendants' agreement. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied, leading to the present petition for mandamus. The Petition: Petitioners (plaintiffs below) contend that the trial court neglected and failed to perform a ministerial duty enjoined by law when it denied them the right to withdraw the amounts deposited by defendants.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court can be compelled via Mandamus to allow the withdrawal of deposited rentals when the defendant fails to file a valid supersedeas bond to stay execution pending appeal.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The trial court is ordered to issue a new writ of execution covering not only the restoration of the property in question but also the withdrawal of the moneys deposited by defendants with the provincial treasurer of Camarines Sur.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court reasoned that the execution of a judgment in a Forcible Entry or Illegal Detainer case during the pendency of an appeal is not limited to the restoration of possession but encompasses the entire judgment. Applying the ruling in Villaroman v. Abaya, the Court emphasized that Rule 72, Section 8 does not restrict execution to possession alone, meaning the collection of money judgments is also included. The Court further explained that while Section 8 states deposited moneys should be held until final disposition, this applies only when the defendant successfully stays execution by filing a bond and paying regular rents. In this case, since the defendants failed to file a valid supersedeas bond, they did not comply with the requirements of the Rules of Court to stay the judgment. Consequently, the plaintiffs became entitled to immediate and full execution, which includes the right to withdraw the rentals deposited in the provincial treasury. The Court distinguished this from Silva v. Macadaeg, where a bond had been filed, noting that without a stay, the judgment must be executed in its entirety to avoid leaving the plaintiffs in a disadvantageous position. Finally, the Court noted that if the judgment is eventually reversed on the merits, the defendant is protected by the law which allows for the restoration of possession and the refund of rentals under Section 5, Rule 39.
Main Doctrine
In forcible entry cases, if a defendant fails to file a valid supersedeas bond and fails to deposit the accruing rentals pending appeal, the plaintiff is entitled to the immediate execution of the judgment, which includes not only the restoration of possession but also the withdrawal of back rentals deposited by the defendant.