Case Digest (G.R. No. L-8657)
Facts:
The case involves Erasmo Alvarez and Marciano Paranada as petitioners against Honorable Lucas Lacson, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Zambales, and respondents Casiano A. Ladoray and Serapio Arimbuanga. The events leading to this case began on November 15, 1950, when the Justice of the Peace Court of San Marcelino, Zambales, rendered a decision in Civil Case No. 10 for forcible entry and detainer. The plaintiffs, Casiano Ladioray and Serapio Arimbuanga, were awarded possession of a disputed land, along with damages amounting to P575 and an additional P250 for damages against the defendants, Esteban Alegre, Bias Javier, and Mariano Rivera. The defendants appealed the decision and filed a supersedeas bond on April 4, 1951, which was undertaken by the petitioners, to stay the execution of the judgment while the case was pending in the Court of First Instance of Zambales, where it was docketed as Civil Case No. 1388. During the pendency of the case, the defendants failed ...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-8657)
Facts:
Initial Judgment in Justice of the Peace Court
On November 15, 1950, the Justice of the Peace Court of San Marcelino, Zambales, rendered a decision in Civil Case No. 10, ordering the defendants (Esteban Alegre, Bias Javier, and Mariano Rivera) to vacate the land, restore possession to the plaintiffs (Casiano Ladioray and Serapio Arimbuanga), and pay damages, including 50 cavanes of palay or its equivalent value of P575 annually, plus P250 in damages.Appeal and Supersedeas Bond
The defendants appealed the decision and filed a supersedeas bond on April 4, 1951, executed by petitioners Erasmo Alvarez and Marciano Paranada, to stay the execution of the judgment. The bond was conditioned to pay damages and costs up to the final judgment in the Court of First Instance of Zambales, where the case was docketed as Civil Case No. 1388.Failure to Comply with Judgment
During the pendency of the case in the Court of First Instance, the defendants failed to deliver the 50 cavanes of palay or its value for the 1951-1952 crop. The plaintiffs moved for immediate execution of the judgment, which was granted. The court allowed the defendants to file another supersedeas bond, which was posted on August 29, 1951, by the petitioners. However, this bond was disapproved on September 25, 1951, and the court ordered the defendants to file another bond within 15 days. A new bond was subsequently filed by Pablo Recaido and Agripino Ferrer, not by the petitioners.Order of Execution Against Petitioners
On June 3, 1954, the court issued an order of execution against the petitioners based on the April 4, 1951, supersedeas bond. The petitioners filed a motion to set aside the writ of execution, arguing that they were not the bondsmen in the Court of First Instance and that the case was still pending. The court denied the motion on August 26, 1954, stating that the writ of execution was based on the April 4, 1951, bond and the judgment of the Justice of the Peace Court.Petitioners' Second Motion Denied
The petitioners filed a second motion to set aside the writ of execution, arguing that the April 4, 1951, bond could not be executed because the case was still pending in the Court of First Instance. On September 24, 1954, the court denied the motion, holding that the bond was joint and solidary with the defendants' obligation and that the writ of execution could include payment of rents or damages.
Issue:
Whether the supersedeas bond filed by the petitioners on April 4, 1951, can be executed before the case is tried and decided by the Court of First Instance of Zambales.
Whether the writ of execution issued against the petitioners was valid, given that the case was still pending in the Court of First Instance and no final judgment had been rendered.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners. It held that the supersedeas bond filed on April 4, 1951, could not be executed before the case was decided by the Court of First Instance. The bond was conditioned to pay damages and costs only up to the final judgment in the Court of First Instance, and since the case was still pending, the writ of execution against the petitioners was premature and erroneous. The Court set aside the order of execution dated June 3, 1954, and enjoined the respondent judge from enforcing it.
Ratio:
- (Unlock)