Title
Rios vs. Reyes
Case
G.R. No. 49057
Decision Date
Dec 15, 1943
Surety-bondsmen Rios and Peña were ordered to fulfill their bond obligations and pay costs in a forcible entry and unlawful detainer case after the court upheld the respondent judge's ruling against them.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 49057)

Facts:

  • Petitioners: Andres Rios and Simplicio B. Pena.
  • Respondent: Jaime M. Beyes, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Albay, and Saturnino Ros.
  • On October 7, 1936, Saturnino Ros filed a forcible entry and unlawful detainer action against Valeriana Vda. de Velasco in the Justice of the Peace Court of Malinao, Albay.
  • The court ruled in favor of Ros, ordering Velasco to restore possession of the land and return 834 bundles of palay or its equivalent value of P150.25, plus costs.
  • Velasco appealed to the Court of First Instance, with Rios and Pena as sureties, as required by Section 88 of Act No. 190.
  • The Court of First Instance dismissed the case, stating the Justice of the Peace's decision was rendered late.
  • Ros appealed to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 47782), which reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings, imposing costs on the appellee.
  • After the Supreme Court's decision became final, Ros obtained a writ of execution against Rios and Pena for the costs awarded.
  • In July 1943, Pena, also Velasco's attorney, filed a motion to set aside the writ of execution, cancel the bond, and dismiss the case.
  • The respondent judge denied this motion on August 19, 1943.
  • Rios and Pena then filed a petition for certiorari, seeking a preliminary injunction against the execution of the judgment for costs and various declarations regarding the case's nature and the judge's jurisdiction.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari, affirming the respondent judge's order.
  • The Court found the petitioners' attempts to evade their bond obligations to be unmeritorious.
  • The judge acted within his a...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court determined that the petitioners' attempts to evade their bond obligations were based on irrelevant interpretations of Section 88 of Act No. 190.
  • The bond was deemed valid and conditioned upon the payment of costs incurred up to the final judgment.
  • The Court viewed the petitioners' claims regarding the case's natu...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.