This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-09-29 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Neither is there merit in petitioners1 position that respondents' failure to file the required supersedeas bond had already rendered the MTC's 26 October 1999 decision final and executory. Although a decision in an ejectment case favorable to the plaintiff is immediately executory[31] unless a supersedeas bond is filed by the defendant[32] the latter's failure to file said bond does not prejudice the appeal otherwise perfected in the premises. This is evident from Section 19, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which, in part, provides as follows: "Sec. 19. Immediate execution of judgment, how to stay the same, - If judgment is rendered against the defendant, execution shall issue immediately upon motion, unless an appeal has been perfected and the defendant to stay the- execution files a sufficient supersedeas bond approved by the Municipal Trial Court and executed in favor of the plaintiff to pay the rents, damages and costs accruing down to the time of the judgment appealed from, and unless, during the pendency of the appeal, he deposits with the appellate court the amount of rent due from time to time under the contract, if any, as determined by the judgment of the Municipal Trial Court. In the absence of a contract, he shall deposit with the Regional Trial Court the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the premises for the preceding month or period at the rate determined by the judgment of the lower court on or before the tenth day of each succeeding month or period. The supersedeas bond shall be transmitted by the Municipal Trial Court, with other papers, to the clerk of the Regional Trial Court to which the action is appealed. | |||||
|
2010-08-03 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In a petition for certiorari, the court must confine itself to the issue of whether or not respondent court lacked or exceeded its jurisdiction or committed grave abuse of discretion.[31] | |||||
|
2005-11-29 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In actions for ejectment, the general rule is if judgment is rendered against the defendant, it is immediately executory. Such judgment, however, may be stayed by the defendant only by: (a) perfecting an appeal; (b) filing a supersedeas bond; and (c) making a periodic deposit of the rental or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the property during the pendency of the appeal.[12] These requisites must concur. Thus, even if the defendant had appealed and filed a supersedeas bond but failed to pay the accruing rentals, the appellate court could, upon motion of the plaintiff with notice to the defendant, and upon proof of such failure, order the immediate execution of the appealed decision without prejudice to the appeal taking its course. Such deposit, like the supersedeas bond, is a mandatory requirement; hence, if it is not complied with, execution will issue as a matter of right.[13] | |||||
|
2004-09-07 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The general rule in ejectment proceedings is that the decision in favor of the plaintiff is immediately executory. The plaintiff is entitled to reacquire possession of the subject property after the trial court rules in his favor, in order to prevent further damage to him arising from the loss of possession of the property in question.[22] To stay the immediate execution of the judgment while the appeal is pending, the following requisites must concur:[23] (1) the defendant perfects his appeal; (2) he files a supersedeas bond; and (3) he periodically deposits the rentals which have become due during the pendency of the appeal.[24] The failure of the defendant to comply with any of these conditions is a ground for the outright execution of the judgment.[25] | |||||