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:

Background of the Case

• Respondent Tecla Vda. de Constancio initiated the case by suing petitioners Pedro Arcilla et al. for forcible entry and unlawful detainer of a parcel of agricultural land in the justice of the peace court of Bum’, Camarines Sur.
• A writ of preliminary injunction was issued restraining the defendants from disturbing the plaintiff’s possession of the land.

Procedural History and Agreement

• Upon the matter reaching the Court of First Instance, on April 21, 1941, the parties entered into an agreement that led to:
• The lifting of the previously issued writ of preliminary injunction.
• Permission for the defendants to continue possessing and cultivating the land subject to the filing of a bond amounting to P1,000.
• The bond was conditioned on the provision that if the Court of First Instance confirmed the decision in favor of the plaintiff, the defendants and their bondsmen would pay the plaintiff the value of the products from the land from the commencement of the action until final judgment.

Judgment and Post-Judgment Motions

• On April 30, 1943, the Court of First Instance rendered a judgment:
• Defendants were ordered to vacate the land immediately.
• The defendants were sentenced to pay damages of P312.50 to the plaintiff along with costs.
• The plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the judgment seeking additional damages.
• On July 27, 1943, the respondent judge denied the motion for reconsideration, noting insufficient evidence for crop-year 1942-1943 damages and underscoring that no fixed annual damages were proved.

Ex-Parte Motion and Subsequent Order

• On July 31, 1943, following an ex-parte motion by the plaintiff, the respondent judge issued an order directing:
• The issuance of a writ of execution requiring the defendants to deliver possession of the land unless:
• They paid the sum of P312.50 (or the appellate court received the payment) and

ii. Filed a sufficient bond of P600 guaranteeing the payment of annual damages from 1943 until final judgment.

Relevant Judicial Provisions and Precedents

• The petitioners referenced Section 2 of Rule 39 and the Heiman vs. Cabrera case, applicable in ordinary civil actions involving execution, but not in the special context of forcible entry and detainer under Rule 72.
• Rule 72, particularly Sections 8 and 9, was cited:
• Section 8 provides for immediate execution of judgment and the conditions for staying such execution during appeal.
• Section 9 mandates that execution not be stayed unless the defendant pays certain amounts designated for rents, damages, and costs pending the final judgment.

Issue:

Whether the respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction and abused his discretion by:

• Granting an ex-parte motion for execution in a case of forcible entry and detainer, allegedly in violation of Section 2 of Rule 39.
• Failing to state the necessary and good reasons for the issuance of the writ of execution pending appeal as required by Rule 39 and the doctrine in Heiman vs. Cabrera.

Whether, even when applying Section 9 of Rule 72, the petitioners could be compelled to:

• Pay or deposit the sum of P312.50, given that it was meant to cover damages as per the earlier judgment and not the fixed monthly rental value for the use and occupation of the land.
• File an additional bond of P600 to guarantee future damages from 1943 onward, particularly since no evidence for such damages had been proven during the trial.

• Whether the already-filed bond of P1,000 sufficiently guaranteed any damages or rental values that might accrue during the pendency of the case.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)