Facts:

The case involves Pedro Arcilla and several other petitioners against Tecla Vda. de Constancio and Hon. Vicente Del Rosario, the Judge of First Instance of Camarines Sur. The dispute arose over a parcel of agricultural land located in Bum, Camarines Sur. On April 21, 1941, Tecla Vda. de Constancio initiated a lawsuit against the petitioners in the justice of the peace court for forcible entry and unlawful detainer. The court issued a writ of preliminary injunction, preventing the defendants from disturbing the plaintiff's possession of the land. Subsequently, the justice of the peace court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendants to restore possession of the land. The petitioners appealed this decision to the Court of First Instance.

On April 21, 1941, the parties reached an agreement that lifted the preliminary injunction, allowing the defendants to continue cultivating the land, provided they filed a bond of P1,000. This bond was conditioned on the de...

Facts:

1. Parties and Initial Action:

   • Respondent Tecla Vda. de Constancio filed a case for forcible entry and unlawful detainer against petitioners Pedro Arcilla et al. in the justice of the peace court of Bum, Camarines Sur.
   • A writ of preliminary injunction was issued, restraining the petitioners from disturbing the respondent's possession of the land.

2. Judgment and Appeal:

   • The justice of the peace court ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering the petitioners to restore possession of the land.
   • The petitioners appealed to the Court of First Instance.

3. Agreement and Bond:

   • On April 21, 1941, the parties agreed to lift the preliminary injunction, allowing the petitioners to continue possessing and cultivating the land upon filing a P1,000 bond.
   • The bond was conditioned to pay the respondent the value of the land's products if the Court of First Instance confirmed the lower court's decision.

4. Judgment of the Court of First Instance:

   • On April 30, 1943, the Court of First Instance ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering the petitioners to vacate the land and pay P312.50 as damages.
   • The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, seeking additional damages, but the court denied it, citing insufficient evidence for damages for the 1942-1943 crop year.

5. Ex-Parte Motion for Execution:

   • On July 31, 1943, the respondent judge granted an ex-parte motion for execution, requiring the petitioners to deliver possession of the land or pay P312.50 and file a P600 bond to guarantee future damages.

6. Petitioners' Contention:

   • The petitioners challenged the order, arguing that the motion for execution was granted ex-parte in violation of procedural rules, that the order lacked good reasons for execution pending appeal, and that the bond requirement was unjustified.

Issue:

1. Whether the respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction or abused his discretion in granting the ex-parte motion for execution.
2. Whether the order for execution pending appeal complied with the requirements of Rule 72.
3. Whether the petitioners could be compelled to pay P312.50 and file a P600 bond to stay execution.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)