G.R. No. 204793 - Tanchanco vs. Santos

Petitioners, namely Rosendo T. Uy, Medring Sioco, Bobby Bernard S. Uy, and Luisa T. Uy, initiated a Petition for Mandamus seeking to compel the respondent judge to issue a writ of execution pending appeal.
The petition arose from consolidated ejectment cases where both the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City (Branch 43) and the Regional Trial Court (Branch 101) rendered decisions in the petitioners’ favor.

On December 19, 1996, the Metropolitan Trial Court rendered a decision in favor of petitioners in four consolidated ejectment cases.
Three of these cases involving private respondents were appealed and raffled to Branch 101 of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, where respondent Judge Pedro T. Santiago presided.
On July 15, 1997, Judge Santiago rendered a decision affirming in toto the decision of the lower court.
A week later, petitioners filed a Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution Pending Appeal, which was met with opposition by private respondents.

On August 6, 1997, private respondents filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals, assailing the decision of the Regional Trial Court.
Respondent Judge issued an Order on August 12, 1997, denying petitioners’ Motion for Execution Pending Appeal.
Petitioners then filed a Motion for Reconsideration on August 22, 1997, which was subsequently opposed by private respondents.
On October 7, 1997, respondent Judge issued another Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration.

Respondent Judge based his denial on the compliance by private respondents with the prerequisites for staying the immediate execution, namely:

Petitioners contended that Rule 70, Section 10 (which contained these requirements) had been expressly repealed by Rule 70, Section 21 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.
The argument centered on whether, in ejectment proceedings involving the Regional Trial Court, the decision is immediately executory and cannot be stayed even if an appeal is perfected.

The court referred to Northcastle Properties & Estate Corp. v. Judge Paas to emphasize that it is the ministerial duty of the Regional Trial Court to execute its decision immediately.

In Northcastle, the Court elucidated the difference between Section 19 (for lower court decisions pending appeal) and Section 21 (for decisions rendered by the Regional Trial Court).

The opinion further discussed the case of Teresa T. Gonzales La'O & Co., Inc. vs. Sheriff Hatab, illustrating that under the revised provisions, judgments in ejectment cases by the Regional Trial Court become immediately executory despite the perfection of an appeal.
The court noted that while the execution pending appeal does not determine the substantive right of possession, it is a procedural duty that ensures prompt restoration of order in ejectment actions.

Whether the decision of a Regional Trial Court in an ejectment case, appealed to a higher court, is immediately executory and thus cannot be stayed by compliance with the previously required conditions (such as filing a supersedeas bond and periodic deposit of rents).
Whether Rule 70, Section 21 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, which mandates the immediate execution of a Regional Trial Court’s judgment, effectively repeals the stay provisions previously available under Section 19.
The propriety of issuing a writ of execution pending appeal in ejectment cases when the execution is deemed a ministerial duty of the court.