Facts:

The case G.R. No. L-750 involves Joaquin Zamora as the petitioner and Isabelo Hilario as the respondent, with Rafael Dinglasan serving as the judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila. The events leading to this case began when the Municipal Court of Manila ordered Hilario to vacate his house, pay overdue rents, and cover the costs associated with the case. Hilario appealed this decision. During the appeal process, he failed to deposit the rent for December 1939 within the required ten-day period in January 1940 due to his son's illness. On January 17, 1940, Zamora filed a motion for the execution of the Municipal Court's judgment. Hilario subsequently deposited the overdue rent of P15.00 and opposed the motion for execution. However, on January 31, 1940, the Court of First Instance ordered the execution of the judgment. Hilario then sought a writ of certiorari from the Court of Appeals, which dismissed his petition on April 10, 1940. Hilario escalated the matter...

Facts:

1. Background of the Case:
   The case involves Joaquin Zamora (petitioner) and Isabelo Hilario (respondent). Hilario was ordered by the Municipal Court of Manila to vacate his residence, pay overdue rent, and cover court costs. Hilario appealed the decision.

2. Failure to Deposit Rent:
   During the appeal, Hilario failed to deposit the rent for December 1939 within the first ten days of January 1940, as required by law. He claimed this was due to his son's illness. On January 17, 1940, Zamora filed a motion for execution of the judgment due to Hilario's failure to deposit the rent. Hilario later deposited the rent and opposed the motion, but the Court of First Instance ordered execution on January 31, 1940.

3. Certiorari Proceedings:
   Hilario filed a certiorari petition with the Court of Appeals, which was denied. He then appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled in his favor, citing equitable considerations due to his son's illness and the long-standing residence of his family in the property.

4. Current Case:
   In the present case, Hilario failed to deposit rent for April and May 1946 within the prescribed period. Zamora filed a motion for execution, which was granted. Hilario deposited the rent on May 31, 1946, two days after the motion for execution was filed.

5. Hilario’s Arguments for Reconsideration:
   Hilario sought reconsideration, arguing that:

   • The decision contradicted established jurisprudence (Bantug v. Roxas).
   • It violated Rule 72, Section 8 of the Rules of Court.
   • It was contrary to Commonwealth Act No. 689.
   • It disregarded his defense that the property was residential, not commercial.
   • It was against public welfare and the spirit of Commonwealth Act No. 689.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Mandatory Nature of Rule 72, Section 8:
   The court emphasized that Rule 72, Section 8 is mandatory. Failure to deposit rent within the prescribed period automatically warrants execution of the judgment, and the court has no discretion to deny it.

2. Equitable Considerations:
   Equitable relief, as granted in Bantug v. Roxas, applies only in exceptional circumstances (e.g., illness, fraud, accident, or excusable negligence). Hilario’s failure to deposit rent was not excusable under these grounds.

3. Commonwealth Act No. 689:
   The Act allows suspension of execution for up to six months, but only for final and executory judgments. Since the judgment in this case was not yet final, Hilario could not invoke this law.

4. Nature of the Property:
   The residential or commercial nature of the property does not affect the execution of the judgment. Hilario could still raise this issue during the appeal.

5. Public Welfare and Legislative Intent:
   The court reiterated that it is not its role to question the wisdom or public welfare implications of laws. That responsibility lies with the legislature.