Facts:

• The case involves Joaquin Zamora (petitioner) and Honorable Rafael Dinglasan, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and Isabelo Hilario (respondents).
• Decided on October 29, 1946.
• Originated from a Municipal Court of Manila decision ordering Hilario to vacate his house, pay overdue rents, and cover costs.
• Hilario appealed but failed to deposit December 1939 rent within the first ten days of January 1940 due to attending to his sick child.
• Plaintiff filed a motion for execution on January 17, 1940; Hilario deposited the rent and opposed the motion.
• Court of First Instance ordered execution on January 31, 1940.
• Hilario sought certiorari from the Court of Appeals, which was denied on April 10, 1940.
• Hilario appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted the appeal on June 30, 1941, citing special circumstances for equitable relief.
• Hilario later failed to deposit rents for April and May 1946, leading to another motion for execution by Zamora.
• Court of First Instance ordered execution; Hilario sought reconsideration, arguing the decision was contrary to established doctrines and regulations.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

1. The motion for reconsideration is denied.
2. The decision is not contrary to Commonwealth Act No. 689.
3. The decision does not invalidate Hilario's defense regarding the nature of the properties....(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The Supreme Court held that the decision in Bantug vs. Roxas was based on special circumstances appealing to justice and equity, which did not apply to Hilario's case.
• Under Rule 72, Section 8, the Court of First Instance must order execution if the defendant fails to make timely rent payments during the appeal.
• Commonwealth Act No. 689 allows for the suspension of execution only for final and execu...continue reading