Facts:

Leticia G. Acuna, along with her husband Alberto Acuna and represented by their attorney-in-fact Atty. Benjamin Y. Golez, filed a petition against Judge Herminigildo C. Cruz of the Municipal Court of Mandaluyong, the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal, Lourdes V. Nepomuceno doing business as Lourdes V. Nepomuceno Children's Pre School House, and Lubin Nepomuceno. The case arose from an ejectment suit filed by Acuna against Nepomuceno on July 1, 1981, after Nepomuceno failed to vacate a property leased under a contract that expired on May 15, 1981. The contract specified a monthly rental of P650.00 due before the 10th day of each month for a period of eight years. After Nepomuceno did not appear in court for scheduled hearings, Acuna was allowed to present her evidence ex-parte. The Municipal Court ruled in favor of Acuna, ordering Nepomuceno to vacate the premises, pay P5,000.00 per month from May 15 until final vacatur, pay P5,000.00 in attorney's fees, and cover costs. Nepomu

...

Facts:

Background and Contractual Relationship

• Petitioner Leticia G. Acuna owned a house and lot located at 654 Boni Avenue, Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, evidenced by TCT No. 99778.
• On April 20, 1973, Acuna leased the property to respondent Lourdes V. Nepomuceno for a period of eight (8) years (May 16, 1973 to May 15, 1981) at a monthly rental of P650.00, payable in advance.
• Upon the expiration of the lease term, despite demands to vacate, Nepomuceno continued to occupy the premises.

Initiation and Proceedings of the Ejectment Case

• Acuna filed an ejectment suit on July 1, 1981, in the Municipal Court of Mandaluyong (Civil Case No. 9101), seeking the vacation of the leased premises.
• Nepomuceno responded by filing her Answer on September 28, 1981, which included special and affirmative defenses and a compulsory counterclaim.
• The trial scheduled for November 12, 1981 proceeded ex-parte as the respondent and her counsel failed to appear, leading to Acuna presenting her evidence unopposed.
• Judgment was rendered on November 13, 1981, ordering:
• The defendants (and any persons possessing rights under them) to vacate the premises.
• Payment of P5,000.00 per month beginning May 15, 1981 until actual vacation of the premises.
• Payment of P5,000.00 as attorney’s fees.
• Payment of the costs.

Post-Judgment Applications and Motions

• Service on Nepomuceno occurred on November 19, 1981; earlier, on November 16, 1981, Acuna had filed an Urgent Ex-parte Motion for Execution Pending Appeal.
• Nepomuceno filed a Motion for Reconsideration on November 25, 1981, which was ultimately denied on December 14, 1981.
• On January 13, 1982, the Municipal Court issued an Order directing the issuance of a writ of execution in favor of Acuna.

Concurrent and Subsequent Judicial Proceedings

• Nepomuceno, instead of perfecting appeal, filed a petition for certiorari with a preliminary injunction before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal (Civil Case No. 44385, Branch XX).
• The petition sought to set aside both the ejectment judgment and the writ of execution, and a temporary restraining order was initially denied.
• A writ of preliminary injunction was issued on January 28, 1982, subject to the posting of a P55,000.00 bond.
• On February 22, 1982, Nepomuceno amended her petition to allege that she had filed a prior consignation case (Civil Case No. 41275) for specific performance with monthly deposit of rentals.
• Acuna filed a motion to dismiss on January 29, 1982, arguing that any error in the ejectment judgment was appealable and not grounds for certiorari, citing Carandang vs. Cabatuando.
• After an extension, the respondents answered on April 15, 1982.

Appellate and Execution Developments

• The Court of Appeals, on May 31, 1982, ruled that:
• In ejectment cases, execution of the judgment is immediate unless the defendant perfects his appeal by posting a sufficient supersedeas bond and making monthly rental deposits.
• Nepomuceno’s petition for certiorari did not qualify to forestall execution as she failed to meet these requisites.
• The CA decision rendered the orders for the issuance of a restraining order and the preliminary injunction null and void.
• The petitioner Acuna then requested the respondent sheriff to execute the ejectment judgment.
• The respondent sheriff declined, citing the expiration of the 60-day life of the original writ of execution.
• Acuna filed a motion for an alias writ of execution before the Municipal Court of Mandaluyong, which was denied on July 27, 1982 due to a pending motion for reconsideration in the CA case.
• Subsequently, the matter was elevated to the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari and mandamus with a preliminary mandatory injunction.
• Meanwhile, Nepomuceno filed another petition for certiorari in a separate CFI case (Civil Case No. 46303, Branch I), which was dismissed as it attempted to relitigate issues already decided by the CA.
• The motion for reconsideration in the CA was finally denied on November 4, 1982, thereby rendering the CA decision final and executory.

Issue:

Whether the execution of the ejectment judgment should be stayed despite the petitioner's resort to post-judgment remedies, such as filing a petition for certiorari.

• Does the filing of a petition for certiorari and seeking a preliminary injunction sufficiently forestall the execution of the ejectment judgment?
• Are the respondent-defendants entitled to a stay of execution absent the posting of a supersedeas bond and monthly deposits as required by law?

Whether the respondent Nepomuceno’s failure to perfect her appeal by timely filing the necessary bond and deposit of rentals forfeited her right to challenge the ejectment judgment through certiorari.

• Is the mere filing of a petition for certiorari an acceptable substitute for the mandatory requirements (supersedeas bond and rental deposits) that rightly suspend the execution of a judgment in ejectment cases?

Whether the lower courts committed grave abuse of discretion in handling the various motions and petitions regarding the execution of the ejectment judgment.

• Was the denial of the motion for an alias writ of execution justifiable given the pending interlocutory proceedings and the rules governing execution in ejectment cases?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)