Add TAGS to your cases to easily locate them or to build your SYLLABUS.
Please SIGN IN to use this feature.
http://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c33ac?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09
[ERASMO ALVAREZ v. LUCAS LACSON](http://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c33ac?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09)
{case:c33ac}
Highlight text as FACTS, ISSUES, RULING, PRINCIPLES to generate case DIGESTS and REVIEWERS.
Please LOGIN use this feature.
Show printable version with highlights

[ GR No. L-8657, Jul 31, 1956 ]

ERASMO ALVAREZ v. LUCAS LACSON +

DECISION

99 Phil. 661

[ G.R. No. L-8657, July 31, 1956 ]

ERASMO ALVAREZ AND MARCIANO PARANADA, PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE LUCAS LACSON, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ZAMBALES, CASIANO A. LADIORAY AND SERAPIO ARIMBUANGA, RESPONDENTS.

D E C I S I O N

ENDENCIA, J.:

On  November 15, 1950, the justice of  the peace court of San Marcelino,  Zambales,  rendered a decision in civil case  No.  10 for  forcible entry and  detainer,  entitled Casiano Ladioray and Serapio Arimbuanga, plaintiffs, vs. Esteban Alegre, Bias Javier and  Mariano Rivera, defendants, ordering the latter "to vacate the land in question and restore its possession to the plaintiffs,  to give to the plaintiffs  the  annual  produce  of  50 cavanes  of palay or its equivalent value in the amount of P575  and to pay P250 by way of damages."  The defendants appealed from that decision and, to stay its immediate execution, they filed on April 4, 1951 a supersedeas bond undertaken by the herein petitioners, conditioned to "enter the action in the Court of First Instance of  Zambales, and ta  pay the damages and costs down to the time of  the final judgment in the action."  Thereafter, the case was transmitted to the court of First Instance of Zambales where  it was docketed as Civil Case No.  1388.   While the case waj3 pending trial in the latter court, the defendants  failed  to give to the plaintiff's the 50 cavanes of palay or its value, corresponding to the crop  of  1951-1952, hence the  plaintiffs  moved for the immediate  execution of the  aforesaid decision.   This motion was granted, but it was  subject to the right of the defendants to  file  another supersedeas  bond which was posted on August 29,1951 by the herein petitioners.  Upon opposition by  the  plaintiffs,  this second bond was disapproved  by the Court in its order dated  September 25, 1951, but at the same time it ordered  the defendants to execute  another bond within the period of 15 days, otherwise the judgment of the Justice of  the Peace Court of San Marcelino will be executed.   Accordingly, another bond was posted by Messrs.  Pablo Recaido and Agripino Ferrer, not by  the herein petitioners.

While the case was in this condition,  upon petition of the plaintiffs, the Court issued on June 3,  1954 an order of execution against the herein petitioners,  who, upon receipt thereof, filed on July 19,  1954 a motion to set it aside and to stay  the sale of their properties, claiming that it was erroneously issued against them in that they were not the bondsmen of the defendants in the Court of First Instance but Messrs.  Pablo  Recaido and Agripino Ferrer.  On August 26, 1954, the motion was denied by the court on the ground  that the bond which  is the subject of the  writ of execution is the supersedeas bond  filed  by  the herein petitioner on April 4, 1951, and not that filed on August 29, 1951, and that the writ of execution was issued  to enforce the judgment of the justice of the peace court  of November 15,  1950.  Thereupon, on September 2,  1954 the petitioners filed another motion to set aside the writ of execution, alleging that the supersedeas bond posted by the herein petitioners on  April 4, 1951  cannot  be executed  for the case was still pending hearing in  the Court of First Instance and there was no judgment on  which  to base the writ of execution.   On September 24,  1954, His Honor, the respondent  Judge  Lucas  Lacson,  entered  the following order: 

"Considering that the decision of the justice of  the peace court of San Marcelino, Zambales, explicitly provides for payment to plaintin's the annual produce of fifty cavans  of palay or pay its equivalent in the amount of P575 which provision the herein defendants have failed to comply; that it appears from the sheriff's return that the herein defendants are all  insolvent  (p.  245, rec.); that at any rate the  obligation undertaken  by the  bondsmen  Erasmo  Alvarez and Marciano Paranada is joint and solidary with and not merely subsidiary to that of their principal the herein defendants; and that section 8  Rule 72 of the Rules of Court does not limit the execution to the possession of  the property  in question but  it also' refers  to the execution of the whole judgment rendered by the  Justice  of the Peace Court or the  Municipal  Court which may  include  not only possession but also payment of rents or damages  (Villaroman vs. Abaya et  al., G. R.  No. 4833,  promulgated March 21, 1952), the court finds the "Motion for Reconsideration and second Motion for Dismissal of Writ of Execution" filed on  September 2,  1954 by Atty. Gregorio Dolojan, counsel for the bondsmen-movants  Erasmo Alvarez and Marciano Paranada,  to be without merit and hereby denies said motions."

As could be gathered from the foregoing, the main question involved in this case is whether the supersedeas  bond of  April  4, 1951 posted by the herein petitioners  to stay the execution of the judgment of the Justice of the Peace Court of San Marcelino, Zambales, can be executed before the case is tried and decided by the Court of First Instance of Zambales.  Under section 8 of Rule 72 of the Rules of Court, during the pendency of the appeal, upon failure of the defendant to pay to the  plaintiff or to deposit with the Court of First Instance, from time to time, the rent due as  found by the judgment of  the justice of the peace or municipal court on or before the 10th  day of each calendar month, the plaintiff has a perfect right to secure a writ of execution, but that execution should not extend to the sureties of the supersedeas  bond which, as we held in several cases, only answers for the rents or damages down to the time of perfection of the appeal  taken from the final judgment rendered in the justice of the peace or municipal court and not for the future  rents or damages that may accrue during the pendency of the appeal, which  are guaranteed by periodical deposits or payments  to be made by defendant-appellants.   (Aylon  vs.  Jugo,  78 Phil.,818;  University of  Sto. Tomas vs,  Ocampo, 85 Phil.,  144  and Hilado vs. Tan, G. R.  No. L-1964,-August  23, 1950).  Accordingly,  we  find  that  the  disputed order of  the herein respondent  judge,  dated  September  24,  2954,  is  completely  erroneous in  so far as it  ordered the execution of the supersedeas bond posted on April 4,1951 by the herein petitioners in the justice of the peace court of San Marcelino because  that bond  was conditioned to  "enter the action in the Court of First Instance of Zambales and to pay damages and costs down to the time of the final judgment that the said court may render in the case and, up to the filing of this petition before us, the aforementioned civil case  No. 1388 was still pending hearing in that court. Moreover, it appears that to stay the  execution of the judgment of the justice of the peace court of San Marcelino during the pendency  of the case in the Court of  First Instance of Zambales, the defendants had filed another bond executed to the plaintiffs by Pablo  Recaido and Agripino Ferrer and, if at all, this bond should be the one  ordered executed and not the aforesaid supersedeas bond posted by the herein  petitioners.  Accordingly, we hold that in the case  at bar, while the respondent judge has correctly issued the writ of execution of the  above-mentioned judgment of the justice of the peace court of San Marcelino with regard to the delivery to the plaintiffs of the possession  of the land  in  question  and to collect  from the defendants the damages adjudicated  in  their  favor, His Honor, however, committed error in ordering the execution of the supersedeas bond of April  4, 1951 because the case was still pending in  his  court and no decision has as  yet been  rendered therein against the defendants.

Wherefore, the disputed order  of April 4, 1951  as well as the aforesaid writ of  execution dated June 3,  1954  are hereby set aside and  the respondent judge enjoined from enforcing them.

Paras, C. J.,  Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes A. Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L.  and Felix, JJ.,  concur.


tags