Case Digest (G.R. No. L-2720)
Facts:
- Hemandas Udharam is the petitioner; Rafael Dinglasan is the respondent, a Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila.
- A complaint for illegal detainer was filed by Ysabel Vda. de Padilla and others against Udharam in the Municipal Court of Manila.
- The court ruled against Udharam and his co-defendants, ordering them to vacate the premises and pay rents.
- Udharam filed a supersedeas bond of P1,000, which the court found insufficient, and later withdrew it.
- Other defendants were ejected, but Udharam remained until July 11, 1946.
- While co-defendants did not appeal, Udharam did, resulting in a ruling that required him to pay P3,000 for the period from May 1 to July 11, 1946, plus costs.
- A writ of execution was issued against Udharam, requiring a supersedeas bond of P8,000, which he failed to provide.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The Supreme Court ruled that Udharam's supersedeas bond was insufficient to stay the execution of the judgment.
- The Court held that the judgment could be executed concerning both possession of the p...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The Supreme Court's decision was based on the principle that in cases of forcible entry or illegal detainer, execution of a judgment can proceed if the appealing party has not provided a sufficient supersedeas bond.
- Udharam's bond of P1,000 was deemed inadequate, and his with...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-2720)
Facts:
The case involves Hemandas Udharam as the petitioner and Rafael Dinglasan, the Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, as the respondent. The events leading to this case began with a complaint for illegal detainer filed by Ysabel Vda. de Padilla and others against Udharam in the Municipal Court of Manila. The court rendered a judgment against Udharam and his co-defendants, ordering them to vacate the premises in question and to pay the corresponding rents. Following this judgment, Udharam filed a supersedeas bond amounting to P1,000, which the court deemed insufficient. Subsequently, Udharam withdrew this bond. As a result, the other defendants were ejected from the premises, while Udharam remained until July 11, 1946. The co-defendants did not appeal the judgment, but Udharam did, leading to a ruling in the Court of First Instance that ordered him to pay jointly and severally with his co-defendants the sum of P3,000 for the period from May 1 to July 11, 1946, along with the costs. Despite appealing to the Court of Appeals, a writ of...