Facts:

The case revolves around Isabelo Astraquillo and Juanita J. Astraquillo (petitioners) versus Primitivo Javier and Amparo S. Javier (respondents) in G.R. No. L-20034, with a decision rendered on January 30, 1965. The proceedings trace back to a Civil Case No. Q-2276 filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Branch V, Quezon City), which culminated in a decision dated August 23, 1961. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, ordering the dismissal of the complaint filed by the petitioners, declaring a real estate mortgage invalid, and mandating the petitioners to vacate the premises and pay various sums to the respondents, such as back rentals, damages, and attorney's fees.

Upon receiving an unfavorable ruling, the Astraquillos filed a notice of appeal on September 27, 1961. The respondents subsequently filed a motion for execution pending appeal, claiming the petitioners' insolvency as justification. The trial court initially granted this motion, emphasizin

...

Facts:

Background and Procedural History

• The petitioners, Isabelo Astraquillo and Juanita J. Astraquillo, originally filed their appeal following an unfavorable decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Quezon City, Branch V) in Civil Case No. Q-2276 dated August 23, 1961.
• The trial court’s decision dismissed the complaint against defendants Primitivo Javier and Amparo S. Javier and issued a series of orders, including:
• Declaring a real estate mortgage void.
• Ordering the petitioners to surrender possession of the disputed premises.
• Mandating the payment of back rentals, actual damages, sums allegedly received but not delivered, moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
• The petitioners eventually filed a notice of appeal on September 27, 1961, together with an appeal bond and record on appeal.
• Due to a defect in the record on appeal, the trial court ordered the plaintiffs to amend the filing, which they complied with and resubmitted for approval on October 11, 1961, later reset on October 28, 1961.

Motion for Execution Pending Appeal

• In parallel with the appeal process, defendants Javier filed a motion for execution pending appeal on October 10, 1961, later amended on October 25, 1961, alleging the insolvency of the petitioners as the special ground for immediate execution.
• The defendants’ motion detailed:
• Attempts by the PHHC since March 1955 to eject the petitioners for nonpayment, which were forestalled by the defendants’ intervention.
• Admissions by petitioner Isabelo Astraquillo on the witness stand regarding his need for funds.
• Evidence of the petitioners’ low income based on the gross income figures for the year 1959.
• The trial court granted the defendants’ motion on October 28, 1961, by ordering the issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal, subject to the condition that the petitioners post a supersedeas bond of P20,000.00 within ten days.
• The petitioners opposed the motion, contending that mere allegations of insolvency without evidentiary proof did not justify execution pending appeal and that the trial court’s discretion should only consider circumstances after the decision was rendered.

Subsequent Developments

• The petitioners filed a motion to reconsider the execution order on November 28, 1961, which was denied by the trial court on December 2, 1961.
• The trial court also directed the respondent Sheriff to enforce the writ of execution upon the petitioners’ failure to post the required supersedeas bond.
• Respondents proceeded with enforcement when, on July 14, 1962, an alias writ of execution was secured, leading to the levy and sale of the petitioners’ personal properties, as well as threats of ejectment from the premises.
• In response, the petitioners filed the instant petition to review on certiorari with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction on July 23, 1962, against the Court of Appeals’ resolution upholding the trial court’s order.

Contentions Raised by the Parties

• Petitioners argued that:
• The Court of Appeals reversed its original decision without merit, even though respondents’ motion to reconsider essentially reiterated arguments previously advanced.
• There was no substantial evidence to prove the petitioners’ insolvency, thus making the issuance of the execution order unwarranted.
• Respondents maintained that:
• The trial court properly exercised its discretion based on the evidence of the petitioners’ insolvency, such as the admission of need for funds, failure to post the required bond, and the sizable accumulated rental arrears.
• The appellate court, in upholding the trial court’s finding and execution order, acted within its discretionary power under the Rules of Court.

Issue:

• Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to a manifest lack or excess of jurisdiction by reversing its initial decision granting the petitioners’ certiorari petition and upholding the trial court’s special order of execution pending appeal.
• Whether the alleged insolvency of the petitioners, as evidenced by their inability to pay accumulated rental arrears and admissions during trial, sufficed as a special and good reason to justify the immediate execution of the decision pending appeal.
• Whether the reversal of the original ruling by the Court of Appeals, based on a motion for reconsideration that reiterated already presented evidence, was proper and within the inherent powers of the court.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)