Facts:

The case involves Pastor Acibo and 30 other petitioners against Hon. Higinio Macadaeg, Maria Paz Mendoza-Guazon, and the Sheriff of Manila. The events leading to this case began when Dr. Maria Paz Mendoza-Guazon filed an ejectment suit in the Municipal Court of Manila against 56 individuals, including the petitioners, claiming they unlawfully withheld possession of a parcel of land located in Paco, Manila. The Municipal Court ruled in favor of Mendoza-Guazon, ordering the defendants to vacate the premises and pay back rents for various periods up to August 1961, as well as ongoing rents from September 1961 until they vacated. The defendants appealed this decision to the Court of First Instance of Manila. However, Mendoza-Guazon requested immediate execution of the judgment, arguing that the defendants had failed to file a required supersedeas bond as stipulated in Section 8 of Rule 72 (now Section 8, Rule 70) of the Revised Rules of Court. On March 20, 1962, the defendants so...

Facts:

Origin of the Case

• An action for certiorari and prohibition was filed to set aside a demolition order issued by the Court of First Instance of Manila.
• The petitioners, representing 31 of 56 defendants, challenged the demolition order in connection with an ejectment suit filed by Dr. Maria Paz Mendoza-Guazon.

Ejectment Suit and Judgment

• Dr. Mendoza-Guazon initiated an ejectment suit in the Municipal (now City) Court of Manila against 56 persons, alleging unlawful detainer of a parcel of land in Paco, Manila.
• After the hearing, the Municipal Court rendered judgment in favor of Dr. Mendoza-Guazon, ordering the defendants to vacate the premises and to pay back rents covering various periods ending August 1961 and current rents from September 1961 until actual vacation.

Appeal, Supersedeas Bond, and Motions

• Following the judgment, the petitioners (defendants in the ejectment suit) appealed to the Court of First Instance but failed to file a supersedeas bond or pay periodic deposits for the current rents as required by the applicable rule.
• Defendants later sought a ten-day period within which to file the supersedeas bond and suspend the execution, but this motion was opposed by Dr. Mendoza-Guazon.
• Subsequently, even though some of the petitioners eventually filed supersedeas bonds, the Court of First Instance disapproved some of these bonds and denied the motion to suspend execution altogether.

Demolition Order and Execution

• On March 27, Dr. Mendoza-Guazon requested a special order of demolition to remove houses built by the tenants, which were allegedly not removed voluntarily.
• The lower court, acting on the pending motions of the parties, ordered the demolition of the houses on April 14, 1962, even before granting any suspension of execution.
• The Sheriff, instead of executing the demolition order immediately, allowed intermediate periods: first granting a five-day period (until April 22) for the tenants to vacate, and later an additional three-day period for petitioners to secure a writ of injunction.
• When no injunction was issued by the Supreme Court, the Sheriff's execution of the demolition was finally carried out on April 26, 1962.

Allegations of Abuse of Discretion

• Petitioners contended that the lower court acted in excess of its jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion by:
• Refusing to suspend the execution of the judgment and by not approving the belatedly filed supersedeas bonds.
• Denying them a reasonable time to remove their houses prior to the demolition.
• Additionally, petitioners invoked Section 13, Rule 39 (now Section 14, Rule 39) of the Rules of Court, arguing that the demolition of improvements without the requisite court order or reasonable notice contravened the procedural due process.

Issue:

Whether the Court of First Instance improperly exercised its discretion by refusing to suspend the execution of the judgment and by not approving the supersedeas bonds filed after execution had been ordered.

• Does the failure to file the required supersedeas bond or deposit for current rents warrant immediate execution as prescribed by the Rules of Court?

Whether the execution and subsequent demolition order violated the petitioners' right to due process, specifically in relation to:

• The alleged failure to provide adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard before the demolition of their houses.
• The assertion that the procedure under Section 13, Rule 39 (now Sec. 14, Rule 39) was not followed.

---

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)