Facts:

This case involves petitioners Andres Rios and Simplicio B. Pena against respondent Jaime M. Beyes, the Judge of the Court of First Instance of Albay, and Saturnino Ros. The events leading to this case began on October 7, 1936, when Saturnino Ros initiated 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 disputed land and to return 834 bundles of palay or its equivalent value of P150.25, along with the payment of costs. Velasco appealed the decision to the Court of First Instance, posting an appeal bond with Rios and Pena as sureties, as mandated by Section 88 of Act No. 190.

The Court of First Instance dismissed the case, citing that the Justice of the Peace's decision was rendered more than a week after the hearing. Ros appealed this dismissal to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 47782), which reversed the dismis...

Facts:

1. Initial Case and Judgment:

   • On October 7, 1936, Saturnino Ros filed a forcible entry and unlawful detainer case 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 value (P150.25), plus costs.

2. Appeal and Bond:

   • Velasco appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) and filed an appeal bond with petitioners Andres Rios and Simplicio B. Pena as sureties. The bond was required under Section 88 of Act No. 190 to stay execution of the judgment pending appeal.

3. Dismissal and Reversal:

   • The CFI dismissed the case, ruling that the justice of the peace court's decision was rendered more than one week after the hearing, which was improper.
   • Ros appealed to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 47782), which reversed the CFI's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings, with costs against Velasco.

4. Execution of Costs:

   • After the Supreme Court's decision became final, Ros obtained a writ of execution from the CFI in July 1943 to collect costs from the sureties (petitioners Rios and Pena).

5. Petitioners' Motions:

   • Pena, acting as both attorney for Velasco and surety, filed motions to:
     (a) Set aside the writ of execution,
     (b) Cancel the bond, and
     (c) Dismiss the case.
   • These motions were denied by the CFI on August 19, 1943.

6. Certiorari Petition:

   • Petitioners filed a certiorari petition, seeking to restrain the execution of costs and arguing that:
     (a) The case was not for forcible entry but for delivery of personal property, making the bond unnecessary.
     (b) The CFI had no jurisdiction to order execution of the bond.
     (c) The CFI lacked jurisdiction after the complaint was amended to substitute Rios for the deceased Velasco, changing the nature of the case.

7. Respondent's Position:

   • Ros argued that the petitioners' tactics were dilatory and aimed at evading their obligations under the bond.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Validity of the Bond:

   • The bond was executed under Section 88 of Act No. 190 to stay execution of the judgment pending appeal. It obligated the sureties to pay costs "down to the time of the final judgment in the action."
   • The bond's purpose was to ensure compliance with the judgment, and the sureties could not evade their obligation after benefiting from the stay of execution.

2. Jurisdiction of the CFI:

   • The CFI had jurisdiction to enforce the bond as part of its authority to execute the Supreme Court's final judgment.

3. Amended Complaint:

   • The substitution of Rios for Velasco did not alter the nature of the case, which remained a forcible entry and unlawful detainer action. The CFI properly admitted the amended complaint.

4. Dilatory Tactics:

   • The petitioners' claims, including the alleged discovery of insufficient allegations in the complaint after seven years of litigation, were deemed dilatory and without merit.

5. Fairness and Equity:

   • The Court emphasized the unfairness of allowing the sureties to evade their obligations after their client had enjoyed possession of the land for years.