Sometime in 1954 the respondent spouses Luis Francisco and Adela Bias de Francisco brought a detainer action in the Municipal Court of Manila  against the  petitioner's to recover possession of Booth No.   22,  Block No.  81,  of the  San Lasaro Estate  (civil No,   32370).     The Municipal Court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction,  determination of  the  ownership of the   booth being involved   (Annex A).     The respondent spouses appealed to the  Court of First  Instance   (civil No, 24356) and pending the   appeal,  the respondent spouses withdrew it with the  consent of the  petitioners   (Annex B).     On 10 August 1955 the respondent spouses brought an action against the petitioners in the  Court of First Instance of Manila fr recovery of possession of the booth,  rentals due and at P30 a month from August 1953 to August  1955 and as may become due and payable until after possession of booth shall have  been  restored to the respondent  spouses, ges, attorney's fees and  costs  (civil No.  27343;  Annex 1), er trial, the   Court rendered judgment for the  respondent ordering the  petitioners

(1)  To vacate and surrender to  the  former Booth No.  22 on Block No.   81 of the  San Lazaro Estate;
(2)  To pay the former the sums  of  (a) P720.00 representing the rentals in arrears at  the rate of P30.00 a month from August,  1953  to August, 1955 and such  other rentals as may fall due  and demandable up to and until they shall have vacated the booth in question;
(3)  P500.00 for attorney's fees;  and the costs of suit.

Defendants'   (petitioners')  counter-claim is hereby dismissed for lack of merit.     (Annex 2.)  this judgment the petitioners filed a notice of appeal, an appeal bond and a record on appeal.     On motion,  the  Court granted the respondents five days  from 7 July 1956 within . which to file objection to the allowance of the record on appeal (Annex 3).     In a motion filed with the   respondent court on 1-1 July 1956   (Annex C)  and in a  supplementary motion filed on 14 July 1956   (Annex 4),  the respondent  spouses prayed for execution of the judgment on the  ground that the  petitioners had not filed a supersedeas bond and had not deposited in court nor had they paid to the respondent spouses the monthly rentals fixed in the   judgment on or before the tenth dayy of each and every  calendar month; and that the respondent spouses had been deprived by the  petitioners of the use, [Occupation and enjoyment  of their property for more than one year.    The petitioners objected to the  execution of the judgment as prayed for by the respondent spouses,  on the ground that as the action is not of forcible entry and detainer under Rule 72,  the  Court  cannot  order the   execution of its judgment pending appeal and  may do  so only for good to be stated in a special order pursuant to section 2, Rule   39 (Annex B).     On 4 August 1956 the respondent  court entered an order granting the writ of execution prayed for by the respondent spouses  (Annex G).    On 6 August 1956 the , respondent deputy sheriffs  executed the  order and delivered  possession of the  booth to the respondent  Adela Bias de Francisco (Annex 6).

"Contending that  the respondent  court acted with grave case of discretion and that   there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy,  and adequate remedy in the  ordinary course of  law, the petitioners come to this Court and  pray

1.   That a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction be issued,  upon the  filing of the proper bond ordering the respondents Francisco,  and Deputy Sheriffs Basilio Magsombol and Melanio P. Ramos to return the possession of Booth No. 22 to petitioners;
   
2.    That the  order issued by respondent  Honorable Vicente Santiago be annulled and set aside;
   
3.   That respondents Francisco   and Deputy Sheriffs Basilio Magsorabol and Melanio 'B.  Ramos be ordered to  indemnify petitioners for  such damage that  petitioners may prove upon proper hearing,  as having been suffered by them because of the illegal act  committed,  plus costs.

Petitioners  further pray for any other  relief in law or equity to which they may be  entitled.

On 17 August  1956 this  Court issued a writ of preliminry mandatory injunction after  the   filing of a bond in the P1,000, ordering the  respondent spouses to return the possession of the booth in question to the  petitioners.     As I booth was found by the  sheriffs  to be in the  possession of another, on 12 September 1956 this  Court amended the writ pring whomsoever, is in possession of it to deliver the to the petitioners.    On 20 September  1956 the   petitioners recieved possession of the booth.

The petitioners contend that as the action brought by respondent  spouses against  them in the   Court of First Instance of Manila   (civil No.   27343; Annex 1)  is an action reivindi catoria and not of forcible  entry and detainer under 72, the provisions of sections 8 and 9 of the rule,  propiling for immediate  execution in case the  defendant  fails  to be a supersedeas bond or to deposit in court or to pay to 'plaintiffs the monthly rentals or reasonable value or compensation for the  use and occupation of the premises as fixed the judgment of the  Court on or before the tenth day of the calendar month,  do not  apply.

In their complaint the respondent spouses allege that are the  lessors and the  petitioners are the  lessees of h No. 22,  Block No.   81,  of the  San Lazaro Estate,   the platter having undertaken to pay to the   former the   sum of P30 monthly as rental for its use and  occupation,  with which obligation the petitioners failed to comply from August   1953  to August 1955,.    They  sought to recover possession of the booth and to collect the  unpaid rentals.    The respondent court found that the respondent spouses were lessors and the  petitioners lessees of the booth and that the  latter had failed to pay the rentals for the  use and occupation of the booth, and rendered judgment for the respondent  spouses.    Had the action been brought by the latter within one year from August 1953, when the petitioners first failed to pay the rentals, their action would have been brought properly under Rule 72.    As the action to recover  possession and to collect due and unpaid rentals was brought on 10 August 1955, more than one  year from the  time the petitioners began to withhold unlawfully the possession of the booth, the action was  publiciana or plenaria de posesion.    Obviously, the provisions of Rule 72  on forcible entry and detainer actions do not apply to publiciana or plenaria de  posesion actions , for the simple  reason that the   former being summary must be  constnued restrictively.     Hence the  respondent  court  committed an error in basing or predicating its order directing the  execution  upon Rule 72. ¹       Analyzing, however, the substance of the order,  its entry may be deemed justified under and pursuant  to section 2,   Rule 39,   because the  order recites the fact that the petitioners are lessees of the booth and  the  respondents the  lessors   (Annex 7);     that the petitioners as  lessees had not paid the  stipulated rental of P30 a month from August 1953 to  August: 1955 and the rentals thereafter up yo August 1956;  and that the respondent spouses have no assurance or security that the jugment appealed from,  if affirmed, would be satisfied by the petitioners.     The order assailed recites or states good reasons to justify the issuance of the writ  of execution despite the appeal taken by the petitioners from the  judgment  rendered against them.

The writ of certiorari prayed for  is denied, but the  respondent, court is directed to fix the amount  of the   supersedeas bond that the  petitioners may file to  stay the execution of the  judgment; the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction heretofore  issued is discharged,  without pronouncement as to costs.

Paras, C.J. Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A. Bautista Angelo, Concepoion, Reyes, J.B.L. Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

---

¹ Torres vs.  Ocampo, 45 Off.  Gaz.   2S76;  Feldman vs. Encarnacion, 48 Off.  Gaz.  3874.