G.R. No. L-1529 - Basilio vs. Natividad

The case involves a dispute in a desahucio (eviction) action between Domingo Queri (the demandante) and Jose Basilio (the recurrente).

The case was handled in the judicial system of Manila, involving a municipal court, a trial court (Hon. Felipe Natividad, J.I.), and later brought before this Court by basilio.

A third party, L. Pasicolan, acted in his capacity as sheriff of Manila in connection with the execution of orders.

The execution order was issued during the pendency of the appeal based on Rule 72, Section 8 of the Regulation of the Courts.

The basis for the execution order was that Jose Basilio failed to pay the rental amount of P400 for May 1947 by the deadline of June 10, 1947, or alternatively, did not deposit the amount in the appropriate escribanía of the court.

The order, therefore, was a procedural step taken against a defaulting debtor in compliance with the prescribed rules.

Jose Basilio alleged that there was a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court judge (Hon. Felipe Natividad) in issuing the execution order.

He contended that he had, in fact, offered the payment of the rent on June 10, 1947—before incurring further default—yet the demandante (Domingo Queri) refused to accept it.

He asserted that he had incurred expenses for improvements and useful expenditures on the leased property amounting to P2,714, which, if netted against the rental dues, would have resulted in a favorable balance for him.

Furthermore, his argument implied that acceptance of his payment would have negated the need for an execution order.

There is evidence that, notwithstanding his claims, Basilio did not deposit the payment at the court’s escribanía as contemplated by the rule.

Despite his claim of an offered payment on June 10, the records indicate that eight days later (on June 18, 1947), the demandante moved for immediate execution of the judgment.

It was also noted that the demandante, who in fact was not the owner of the lot but rather a tenant himself paying P200 monthly rent for the property, had no valid ground to be deemed as having waived his due for the monthly rental.

Further complicating Basilio’s arguments was the fact that he had not presented any positive defense regarding the alleged improvements in the earlier municipal proceedings.

The claim concerning the compensatory nature of the expenditures (P2,714) was raised for the first time during the appeal before the trial court, making it a late and unsupported defense.

Additionally, it is recorded that on August 10, 1947, Basilio voluntarily returned the leased property to its owner—a fact that rendered many of the disputed issues academic.

Whether the trial court, in issuing the execution order against Jose Basilio, acted within its discretion or committed a grave abuse of discretion.
Whether the alleged defense—that Basilio had offered payment promptly and that the demandante had wrongfully refused such payment—was valid to halt the execution order.
Whether the presentation of a compensatory defense (improvements and useful expenditures amounting to P2,714) could justify stopping the execution of the approved judgment.
Whether the procedural requirements under Rule 72, Section 8 were indeed complied with, particularly regarding the offer of payment and/or deposit in the court’s escribanía.