Acuña v. Cruz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Leticia G. Acuña leased a house and lot to respondent Lourdes Nepomuceno for eight years, commencing May 16, 1973, with a monthly rental of P650.00. Upon expiration of the lease on May 15, 1981, Nepomuceno refused to vacate despite demands. Acuña filed an ejectment suit on July 1, 1981. Procedural History: Nepomuceno failed to appear for trial on November 12, 1981, leading to an ex-parte presentation of evidence by Acuña. On November 13, 1981, the Municipal Court rendered judgment ordering Nepomuceno to vacate, pay P5,000.00 monthly rental from May 15, 1981, P5,000.00 for attorney's fees, and costs. Acuña filed an Urgent Ex-parte Motion for Execution pending Appeal on November 16, 1981. Nepomuceno filed a Motion for Reconsideration on November 25, 1981, which was denied on December 14, 1981. On January 13, 1982, the Municipal Court ordered the issuance of a writ of execution. Instead of appealing, Nepomuceno filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal, seeking to set aside the Municipal Court's judgment and writ of execution. The CFI denied the temporary restraining order but later issued a preliminary injunction conditioned upon a P55,000.00 bond. Nepomuceno amended their petition to include a prior case for Specific Performance with Consignation. Acuña moved to dismiss the CFI petition, arguing it did not allege grave abuse of discretion and that any error was one of judgment correctible by appeal. On May 31, 1982, the Court of Appeals (CA) nullified and set aside the CFI's orders, finding grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to the certiorari petition and enjoining execution. The CA ruled that immediate execution of the ejectment judgment was a matter of right as Nepomuceno had not appealed, posted a supersedeas bond, or made monthly deposits. Nepomuceno's motion for reconsideration of the CA decision was denied on November 4, 1982. The Petition: Acuña filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court to set aside the Municipal Court's July 27, 1982 order denying a motion for an alias writ of execution. The denial was based on a pending motion for reconsideration with the CA. The Supreme Court treated the respondents' comment as an answer.
Issue(s)
Whether the Municipal Court gravely abused its discretion in denying the motion for an alias writ of execution. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in nullifying and setting aside the orders of the Court of First Instance which granted a preliminary injunction against the execution of the ejectment judgment. Whether the filing of a petition for certiorari and a prior case for specific performance with consignation exempts a defendant-lessee from the requirements for staying execution in an ejectment case.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The respondent Judge is directed to issue the alias writ of execution in Civil Case No. 9101, and the respondent Sheriff is ordered to expeditiously attend to its implementation. The decision is immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of the alias writ of execution: The Municipal Court gravely abused its discretion in denying the motion for an alias writ of execution on the ground of a pending motion for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals had already ruled on the matter, nullifying the preliminary injunction issued by the CFI and affirming the right to immediate execution. The denial by the Municipal Court effectively disregarded the CA's pronouncement and further delayed the execution of a final judgment. On the Court of Appeals' ruling: The Court of Appeals correctly found that the Court of First Instance acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction against the execution of the ejectment judgment. The CA correctly applied Rule 70, Section 8 of the Rules of Court, which mandates immediate execution of an ejectment judgment in favor of the owner-lessor unless the defendant-lessee perfects an appeal, files a sufficient supersedeas bond, and makes the required monthly deposits. The CA rightly pointed out that Nepomuceno failed to comply with any of these requisites. On the effect of certiorari and prior cases: The filing of a petition for certiorari or a prior case for specific performance with consignation does not exempt the defendant-lessee from the requirements for staying execution in an ejectment case. The Supreme Court reiterated that in ejectment cases, immediate execution is authorized upon rendition of judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Resort to certiorari, especially when filed after the reglementary period for appeal has lapsed, cannot be used to circumvent the mandatory requirements for suspending execution. The pendency of a consignation case does not bar an ejectment suit, particularly when the ejectment is sought due to the expiration of the lease period, not solely for non-payment of rentals.
Main Doctrine
In ejectment cases, immediate execution of a judgment in favor of the owner-lessor is a matter of right unless the defendant-lessee perfects an appeal, files a sufficient supersedeas bond, and makes the required monthly deposits. Failure to comply with any of these requisites renders execution mandatory. Resort to certiorari does not exempt the defendant-lessee from these obligations.