Case Summary (G.R. No. L-1529)

Execution Order and Judicial Duty

The court issued an execution order due to the recurrent's failure to pay rent, establishing that the judge's duty to enforce the judgment was categorical and imperative. The judge's discretion would have been abused had he failed to order the execution.

• The recurrent was in default for not paying rent.
• The judge was obligated to enforce the judgment according to established rules and jurisprudence.
• Not issuing the execution order would have constituted an abuse of discretion.

Allegations of Payment Offer

The recurrent claimed that he had offered payment to the plaintiff before incurring default, but the judge correctly dismissed this assertion as unfounded. The recurrent's argument lacked credibility, particularly given the timing of subsequent actions.

• The recurrent alleged he offered payment on June 10, 1947, which was before the default.
• The judge found no merit in the claim that the plaintiff waived the rent payment.
• The plaintiff's actions contradicted the recurrent's claims, as he sought execution shortly after the alleged offer.

Rental Agreement and Payment Obligations

The recurrent's assertion that the plaintiff could not waive the rent was supported by the fact that the plaintiff was not the owner of the property and had his own rental obligations. The recurrent's failure to deposit the payment as required by court rules further solidified his position of default.

• The plaintiff was obligated to pay rent for the property he leased.
• The recurrent did not deposit the rent payment in court, as allowed by the rules.
• The recurrent's claims of payment refusal were not substantiated by valid reasons.

Defense Against Execution Order

The recurrent's defense regarding improvements made to the property was not presented in the initial municipal court proceedings, rendering it ineffective. The court emphasized that the only enforceable debt was the unpaid rent, and the recurrent's claims of compensation were merely allegations.

• The recurrent did not raise the defense of improvements in the municipal court.
• The defense was introduced only during the appeal, which did not halt the execution order.
• The only enforceable debt was the unpaid rent for May ...continue reading

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-1529)

Case Citation

• 80 Phil. 52
• G.R. No. L-1529
• January 26, 1948

Parties Involved

• Petitioner (Recurrente): Jose Basilio
• Respondents (Recurridos): Hon. Felipe Natividad (Judge of First Instance, Manila), Domingo Queri (Plaintiff), L. Pasicolan (Sheriff of Manila)

Procedural Background

• The case revolves around a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by Jose Basilio.
• The petition seeks to annul an execution order issued by Judge Felipe Natividad during the pendency of an appeal in an eviction case.
• The eviction was initiated by Domingo Queri against Jose Basilio in a municipal court.

Relevant Facts

• An execution order was issued for Basilio's failure to pay rent of P400 for May 1947, which was due on June 10, 1947.
• The order was grounded on Rule 72, Section 8 of the court regulations, which mandated payment or deposit of the owed amount by the specified date.
• Basilio claimed he had offered payment on June 10, 1947, but Queri refused to accept it.

Legal Issues Presented

• Whether the execution order constituted an abuse of discretion on the part of Judge Natividad.
• The validity of Basilio's claims regarding improvements made to the property and his defense against the evi...continue reading