Title
Mapua vs. David
Case
G.R. No. L-697
Decision Date
Aug 30, 1946
Petitioners challenged a court order allowing a supersedeas bond to stay execution in an ejectment case, alleging grave abuse of discretion; Supreme Court upheld the trial court's discretion.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-697)

Background of the Case

The petitioners initiated an ejectment action against Suburban Theaters, Inc. in the municipal court of Manila, claiming that their lease contract had expired and that the defendant refused to vacate the premises after demand was made. Initially, the municipal court dismissed the case; however, upon appeal to the Court of First Instance, the judgment was reversed, mandating the defendant to vacate the premises.

Procedural Developments

Before the time for filing an appeal had elapsed, the petitioners sought to execute the judgment on specific grounds. In response, Suburban Theaters, Inc. expressed its intention to stay the execution by filing a supersedeas bond, requesting the court to determine the appropriate amount. The court subsequently granted the defendant five days to post a supersedeas bond of P10,000. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration against this order, which was denied. They proposed to secure a counter-bond of P50,000 or even P100,000 to cover potential damages, an offer that went unacknowledged by the court.

Legal Basis for Appeal

The petitioners pursued a certiorari petition, arguing that the court's decision to allow Suburban Theaters, Inc. to file a supersedeas bond constituted a grave abuse of discretion. Referencing Rule 39, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, it specifies that during an appeal’s pendency, execution may be issued at the court's discretion, provided that the prevailing party offers a sound rationale for such a motion in a special order. The respondents, as the appellants in this case, were entitled to seek a stay of execution through a sufficient supersedeas bond.

Judicial Discretion and Outcome

The court found that issuing a stay of execution upon the filing of a substantial supersedeas bond by the appellants falls within its discretionary authority. The petitioners contended that the merits of the case supported their claim, asserting that the defendant had no lawful possession and lacked any defensive argumen

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.