G.R. No. 164246 - Acbang vs. Luczon, Jr.

The case involves petitioner Herminia Acbang, who filed a petition for prohibition, contesting an order of immediate execution issued by Judge Jimmy H.F. Luczon, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan.
The respondents include the presiding judge of the RTC and the Spouses Maximo Lopez and Heidi L. Lopez in connection with an ejectment suit.

In Civil Case No. 64 filed in the MTC of Alcala, Cagayan, the Spouses Lopez initiated an ejectment suit against Herminia Acbang, her son Benjamin Acbang, Jr., and his wife Jean Acbang.
The defendants (Acbangs) failed to file an answer, leading to the MTC rendering a decision on January 12, 2004, which included:

A declaration that the Spouses Lopez are the true and lawful owners of the land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-139163.
An order for the defendants to vacate the property immediately.
A directive to pay jointly and severally P5,000.00 as attorney’s fees along with the costs of the suit.

Herminia Acbang appealed the MTC decision to the RTC.
During the pendency of the appeal, the Spouses Lopez filed a motion for the execution pending appeal on February 19, 2004, arguing that the defendants had not posted a supersedeas bond.
The Acbangs opposed the motion, contending that:

The failure of the Spouses Lopez to file a motion for execution in the MTC constituted a waiver of their right to immediate execution.
Consequently, the filing of a supersedeas bond was unnecessary.

Judge Luczon of the RTC granted the motion for immediate execution on March 31, 2004, pointing out that no supersedeas bond had been filed by the Acbangs at the time of the motion’s filing.

Dissatisfied with the order granting immediate execution, Herminia Acbang filed a petition for prohibition on July 2, 2004. Her contention was that Judge Luczon erred by granting the execution motion before fixing the supersedeas bond as required.
The petitioner further argued that she would not be able to comply with the supersedeas bond requirements unless she was notified prior to the motion for execution.
Later, on July 30, 2004, the RTC rendered a decision in Civil Case No. 6302, declaring that:

The petitioner had not been properly served with the summons, thus rendering the MTC’s judgment void as far as she was concerned.
The MTC was ordered to reopen the case and serve the summons on Herminia Acbang without delay.

The petitioner maintained that the immediate execution should not have been ordered since the required supersedeas bond was not filed before the motion for execution was granted.
Conversely, the Spouses Lopez argued that:

The issuance of the writ of execution was a ministerial act necessitated by the petitioner’s failure to satisfy the procedural requisites for staying execution.
Filing a notice of appeal alone, without a supersedeas bond and deposit of rentals, did not protect the petitioner from execution.

Whether the immediate execution of the ejectment judgment should have been allowed in the absence of the filing of a supersedeas bond.

Does the mere filing of a notice of appeal suffice to stay the execution, or are the additional requisites (supersedeas bond and periodic rental deposits) mandatory?

Whether the alleged waiver of the right to immediate execution—stemming from the failure of the Spouses Lopez to file a motion for execution in the MTC—can be held against the petitioner.

Is the procedural lapse by the MTC sufficient to negate the need for a supersedeas bond, or must the strict requirements of Section 19, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure be adhered to regardless?

Whether the petitioner’s subsequent argument regarding lack of notification before the filing of the execution motion provides sufficient ground to set aside the RTC’s order.