CHUA CHO, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND SPOUSES MARIANO C.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED, the orders dated June 10, 1993 and June 17, 1993 are SET ASIDE, and respondent court is ORDERED to issue a writ of execution for the enforcement of the decision dated March 5, 1993 rendered by the Municipal Trial Court in Civil Case No. 2592, insofar as the right to the possession of the lots is concerned. Petitioners also challenge the February 15, 1994 Resolution of Respondent Court which denied their motion for reconsideration. [4] The Facts The facts of this case are undisputed. As found by Respondent Court, they are as follows: [5] Coming now to the merits of the case, it appears that on March 5, 1993, the Municipal Trial Court (branch II) of Batangas City rendered judgment for petitioners [private respondents herein] with respect to four lots located in Galicano St., Batangas City, ordering the ejectment of private respondents [petitioners herein] and ordering them to pay monthly rentals of P 50,000.00 starting April 7, 1992 until they shall have vacated the lots and surrendered their possession to petitioners and the sum of P 20,000.00 as attorneys fees. It appears further that a copy of the decision was received by private respondents counsel on March 10, 1993; that on March 11, 1993 he filed a notice of appeal; and that on March 16, 1993, the MTC ordered the records of the case transmitted to the RTC. On March 29, 1993, petitioners moved for the execution of the decision in their favor, alleging that although private respondents had filed a notice of appeal, the latter had not filed a supersedeas bond nor make [sic] a deposit every month of the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the properties as required by Rule 70, sec. 8. Private respondents opposed the motion, claiming that they are co-owners of the lots from which they were ordered to be ejected and that to grant immediate execution of the decision would render their appeal moot and academic. They later filed a supplement to their opposition, claiming that while they were after all willing to file a supersedeas bond, but that they had been kept busy attending to their businesses and thus unable to secure a bond. On June 10, 1993, the trial court issued the first of its disputed orders in which it denied petitioners motion for execution on the ground that the transmission by the MTC of the records of the ejectment case to the RTC, without waiting for the expiration of the period of appeal, prevented private respondents from filing a supersedeas bond on time. The order reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the urgent Motion for Execution filed by plaintiff-appellees is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the defendant appellants are hereby directed to: a) To file with this Court a supersedeas bond in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND ( P 550,000.00) PESOS within five days from receipt of this Order; b) To deposit, within the period afore-mentioned, an amount of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND ( P 150,000.00) PESOS by wa