Chieng Hung v. Tam Ten
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The building was owned by Philippine Remnants Co., Inc. The second floor was subleased by Panciteria Wa Nam, Inc. to Tam Ten for two years, renewable for another two. The original lease terminated in May 1961. Chieng Hung became the new lessee starting June 1, 1961. Tam Ten opted to extend his sublease in April 1961. Chieng Hung refused to renew except at a higher rental and demanded surrender of the premises. Tam Ten refused to vacate or pay higher rent, leading to an illegal detainer case filed by Chieng Hung in the Municipal Court. Procedural History: The Municipal Court rendered judgment ordering Tam Ten to vacate, pay P850.00 monthly until possession is restored, plus attorney's fees and costs. Tam Ten appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI). Chieng Hung moved for immediate execution due to Tam Ten's failure to file a supersedeas bond and late deposit of January and February 1962 rentals (February 21, 1962). Judge Felix Antonio granted the motion on March 15, 1962. Tam Ten's motion for reconsideration was denied. Tam Ten's certiorari petition to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-19715) was dismissed. Chieng Hung renewed his petition for execution in the CFI, which Judge Antonio granted on July 16, 1962. However, upon Tam Ten's motion, respondent Judge Francisco Arca reconsidered and set aside this order on October 24, 1962, and refused to reconsider his resolution despite Chieng Hung's efforts. The Petition: Chieng Hung filed a petition for certiorari against Judge Arca, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction for setting aside the order for immediate execution.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Judge Arca committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in setting aside the order for immediate execution. Whether the sublessee's option to renew his sublease is operative and enforceable against the new lessee.
Ruling
The writ of certiorari is granted. The respondent Judge's orders of October 24, 1962, and December 1, 1962, are annulled and set aside. The respondent Judge is directed to issue an order for the execution of the judgment for the restoration of possession of the premises to petitioner Chieng Hung, without prejudice to the appeal taking its course.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and immediate execution: The Court held that the respondent Judge Arca was guilty of an evasion of a positive duty and committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. This was based on the clear provisions of Revised Rule 70, Section 8, which mandates immediate execution of a judgment in an illegal detainer case unless the defendant perfects an appeal, files a sufficient bond, and deposits the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the premises on or before the tenth day of each succeeding month. The Court emphasized that the failure to make the deposit for January 1962 by February 10, 1962, and the actual deposit only on February 21, 1962, constituted a default that entitled the petitioner to immediate restoration of possession. The Court reiterated that the appellate court has no power to extend the time for making these monthly deposits or to excuse defaults therein, citing uniform and persistent jurisprudence on the mandatory nature of this rule. Therefore, Judge Arca's refusal to enforce the previous execution order was an erroneous application of the law. On the enforceability of the sublease renewal: The Court noted that while the merits of private respondent Tam Ten's position regarding the enforceability of the sublease renewal against the new lessee Chieng Hung was a matter to be decided in the appeal, this did not negate the fact that Tam Ten was sued for illegal detainer and found to be illegally withholding possession. Until the judgment was reversed on appeal, Tam Ten's legal character was that of a deforciant. Consequently, the proceedings and the appeal were governed by the Rules of Court on Forcible Entry and Detainer, and the procedural requirements for staying execution, including timely rental deposits, were applicable regardless of the substantive issue of the sublease renewal.
Main Doctrine
Failure to make timely deposit of monthly rentals during an appeal in an illegal detainer case, as required by the Rules of Court, entitles the plaintiff to immediate execution of the judgment for restoration of possession, and the appellate court has no power to extend the time for making such deposits or excuse defaults therein.