Case Digest (G.R. No. L-2813)
Facts:
The case involves Feliza Aragon as the petitioner and Rafael Amparo and Fructuosa C. Recla Vda. de Gonzales as the respondents. The events leading to this case began when Fructuosa C. Recla Vda. de Gonzales filed an ejection case against Feliza Aragon and other defendants in the Municipal Court of Manila. The land in question belonged to the Hacienda de Nuestra Senora de Remedios, which was leased to the respondent. The Municipal Court ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering the defendants to vacate the land and pay both back and current rents. The defendants appealed this decision to the Court of First Instance but failed to file a supersedeas bond or pay the current rents that had become due. Consequently, on February 10, 1948, the Court of First Instance ordered execution of the judgment unless the unpaid rents were deposited in court within 15 days. This deadline passed without compliance, leading to a writ of execution being issued.
On May 4, 1948, the respondent J...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-2813)
Facts:
Parties Involved:
- Petitioner: Feliza Aragon, one of the defendants in an ejectment case.
- Respondents: Rafael Amparo and Fructuosa Recla Vda. de Gonzales, the plaintiff in the ejectment case.
Background of the Case:
- The respondents filed an ejectment case in the Municipal Court of Manila to oust the petitioner and other defendants from a piece of land.
- The land belonged to the Hacienda de Nuestra Señora de Remedios but was leased to the respondent Fructuosa Recla Vda. de Gonzales.
Judgment of the Municipal Court:
- The Municipal Court ruled in favor of the respondents, ordering the petitioner and other defendants to vacate the land and pay back and current rents.
Appeal to the Court of First Instance:
- The petitioner appealed the decision to the Court of First Instance.
- However, the petitioner failed to file a supersedeas bond and did not pay the current rents as required.
Order of Execution:
- On February 10, 1948, the Court of First Instance ordered execution unless the unpaid rents were deposited within 15 days.
- The petitioner failed to comply, and a writ of execution was issued.
Failure to Comply with Court Orders:
- On May 4, 1948, the court gave the petitioner two months to remove her house and deposit the back and current rents.
- The petitioner failed to comply, and on July 9, 1948, the court ordered the demolition of the houses and the plaintiff's possession of the land.
Petitioner’s Motion for Suspension:
- On January 14, 1949, the petitioner filed a motion to suspend the demolition order, citing financial difficulties and offering to deposit P425.11 for unpaid rentals.
- The deposit was made on January 15, 1949, but the court denied the motion, stating it was made too late.
Petition for Certiorari:
- The petitioner filed a special action for certiorari to annul the execution orders, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the respondent judge.
Issue:
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a stay of execution under Rule 72, Section 3 of the Rules of Court.
- Whether the petitioner can invoke Commonwealth Act No. 639, as amended by Republic Act No. 66, to suspend the execution of the judgment.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)