Pages v. Canonoy
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated from an unlawful detainer action filed by the petitioners (representing the estates of deceased individuals) against respondents Marciano Laurente and Diego Canizares. The Municipal Court of Cebu City ruled in favor of the petitioners, ordering the defendants to pay back rents, vacate the premises, and pay monthly rents until possession was returned, along with attorney's fees and costs. 2. Procedural History: The respondents appealed the Municipal Court's decision to the Court of First Instance of Cebu, where the case was docketed as Civil Case No. R-6989. The petitioners subsequently filed a motion for immediate execution of the Municipal Court's judgment, citing the respondents' failure to file a supersedeas bond and their non-payment of monthly rentals during the appeal. The respondent judge issued an order for execution of rents but allowed the filing of a supersedeas bond for back rentals, and later denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration, asserting discretion in allowing the bond and possession. 3. The Petition: The petitioners filed an original action for certiorari and mandamus with the Supreme Court, seeking to annul or modify the respondent judge's orders and to compel him to issue an order for the immediate execution of the Municipal Court's decision. They argued that under Section 8, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court, they were entitled as a matter of right to the immediate execution of the entire judgment, including ejectment and back rentals, due to the respondents' failure to comply with the requirements for a supersedeas bond and timely payment of monthly rents.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge gravely abused his discretion in refusing to order the immediate execution of the municipal court's judgment for ejectment and payment of back rentals, despite the defendants' failure to file a supersedeas bond and pay current monthly rentals during the pendency of the appeal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the orders complained of and ordered the respondent Judge to issue a writ for the execution of the judgment rendered by the municipal court of Cebu City. The Court held that in unlawful detainer actions, failure to file a supersedeas bond and/or pay the monthly rentals on time during the pendency of an appeal entitles the plaintiff, as a matter of right, to immediate execution of the judgment, both as to rents and possession. The duty of the court to order such execution upon application is ministerial and imperative.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court ruled that in actions for unlawful detainer, if an inferior court renders judgment against the defendant and the latter appeals to the Court of First Instance, the plaintiff is entitled, as a matter of right, to the immediate execution of the judgment. This right encompasses both the payment of rents and the restoration of possession. This entitlement arises when the defendant fails to file a supersedeas bond and/or pay on time the monthly reasonable value of the use of the property or the rents fixed in the judgment. The Court emphasized that Section 8, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court mandates this, and the duty of the Court of First Instance to order such execution, upon proper application by the plaintiff, is ministerial and imperative. Citing a line of established jurisprudence including Romero vs. Pecson, Villaroman vs. Abaya, Perez vs. Hernandez, Lopez, Inc. vs. Philippine Trading, and Alvarez vs. Lacson, the Court underscored that the lower court has no discretion to refuse or delay such execution when the conditions precedent are met by the defendant-appellant. Therefore, the respondent judge's orders, which selectively allowed the filing of a supersedeas bond for back rentals or restricted execution only to current rentals, and denied the motion for reconsideration based on an asserted discretion, constituted a grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
In unlawful detainer cases, failure of the defendant to file a supersedeas bond and/or pay the monthly rentals during the pendency of the appeal entitles the plaintiff, as a matter of right, to the immediate execution of the judgment both as to the payment of rents and the restoration of possession. The court's duty to order such execution, upon application of the plaintiff, is ministerial and imperative.