JOHN F. GOTUACO, PETITIONER, VS. HON. HIGINIO MACADAEG, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA; L. C. YANG, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to annul an order
of the respondent court dated 4 January 1951 claimed to have been entered in
excess of its jurisdiction and for a writ to compel the respondent court to
order the execution of the judgments rendered by the municipal court in civil
cases Nos. 9959, 9960, 9962 and 9963.

Petitioner alleges that on 24 December 1949 he brought an
action for detainer and recovery of rentals against the respondents L. C. Yang,
Ma Mon Luk, Shin Un Ting and Lee Beng Hoo in the municipal court docketed as
civil cases Nos. 9959, 9960, 9962 and 9963, respectively. In their answers the
respondents filed special defenses and counterclaims for P10,216 in the first
case and P3,105 in the second case for sums deposited on account of rentals and
for the value of barong-barongs or structures erected on the respective leased
premises; for P6,415 in the third case for the value of the barong-barong or
structure erected on the leased premises and recovery of alleged excessive
rentals paid to the petitioner; and for P2,032.50 in the fourth case for
recovery of alleged excessive rentals paid to the petitioner. A motion to
dismiss the counterclaim in each case was filed by the petitioner on the ground
that the amounts sought to be recovered by the respondents are beyond the
jurisdiction of the municipal court. The respondents, in turn, filed motions to
dismiss the complaints on the ground that there was a pending action in the
Court of First Iinstance of Manila between the same parties docketed in said
court as civil case No. 10103 filed on 16 January 1950 and amended on 10
February 1950 to include as plaintiffs other defendants in the detainer cases.
In the case referred to the respondents sought to recover the amounts claimed in
the counterclaims filed by them in the detainer cases. Before proceeding with
the trial in the detainer cases the municipal court dismissed the counterclaims
on the ground of lack of jurisdiction but allowed to remain in the answers as
special defenses. The motion to dismiss the complaint in the detainer cases was
denied. After trial the defendants in the detainer cases were ordered
to vacate the premises and to pay to the plaintiff the accrued and unpaid
rentals from March 1949 to December 1949 amounting to P3,884 and P400 a month
thereafter until the defendant vacates and. surrenders the possession of the
premises to the plaintiff with costs in the first case; to pay the accrued and
unpaid rentals from May 1949 to December 1949 amounting to P1,450 and P200 a
month thereafter until possession of the premises shall have been restored to
the plaintiff with costs in the second case; to pay the rentals due and unpaid
from July 1949 to December 1949 amounting to P1,140 and P200 thereafter until
the defendant vacates and surrenders the possession of the premises to the
plaintiff with costs in the third case; and to pay the rentals due and unpaid
from June 1949 to December 1949 amounting to P1,325 and P220 monthly thereafter
until the defendant moves out and restores the possession of the premises to the
plaintiff with costs in the fourth case. From said judgments the defendants
appealed to the Court of First Instance of Manila where the cases were docketed
as civil Nos. 11832, 11833, 11834 and 11835. On 18 August 1950 the petitioner
filed in said four appealed cases motions for execution on the ground that the
defendants therein, the respondents herein, had not paid to the petitioner nor
deposited in court the sums of money to which the petitioner was entitled as
adjudged by the municipal court, nor filed a supersedeas bond to guarantee the
payment thereof, nor paid or deposited in court the sums of money as
compensation for the use and occupation of the premises up to the month of July
1950. The respondents did not deny that they had failed to pay to the petitioner
or deposit in court the sums to which the petitioner was entitled as adjudged by
the municipal court, but objected to the motion for execution on the ground that
there was a pending action in the Court of First Instance of Manila for
reimbursement of the value of improvements and that, if successful, they were
entitled to secure an order restraining the execution of the judgments rendered
by the municipal court. At the hearing of the motion for execution the
petitioner offered to put up a bond to guarantee the payment of whatever amount
might be found due the respondents, the plaintiffs in civil case No. 10103, and
reiterated the offer on the resumption of the hearing in said civil case, but
the motion for execution was denied by the respondent court in an order dated 4
January 1951 upon the grounds advanced by the respondents, the defendants in the
appealed detainer cases and plaintiffs in civil case No. 10103.

In their answer the respondents practically admit the foregoing
facts. However, during the pendency of this case the respondents, the defendants
in the appealed detainer cases, the plaintiff, the herein petitioner, would be
dismissed on the ground that the Court of First Instance of Manila had dismissed
the appealed detainer cases and rendered judgment for the defendants, the
plaintiffs in civil case No. 10103, upholding their claim and right to be
reimbursed for improvements or structures erected by them on the leased premises
and ordering the petitioner, the plaintiff in the appealed detainer cases and
defendant in civil case No. 10103, to pay P7,806 to L. C. Yang; P5,305 to Shih
Un Ting; P1,825 to Ma Mon Luk; P1,650 to Uy Tun; and P355 to Lee Beng Hoo.

For failure of the defendants, the herein respondents, to pay
or deposit the rentals due and unpaid as found by the municipal court or to file
a supersedeas bond to guarantee the payment thereof and to pay thereafter the
monthly rentals or compensation for the use and occupation of the leased
premises during the pendency of the appealed detainer cases, filed a motion
praying that the petition be entitled to have the judgments rendered by the
municipal court executed. A denial of the motion for such execution would be a
clear violation of the Rule on the matter. Mandamus would lie to compel the
Court to issue a writ of execution. But the detainer cases having been disposed
of against the petitioner, the plaintiff in said cases, by the Court of First
Instance on appeal, there is no legal way of annulling the order denying the
motion for execution and of directing the respondent court to issue a writ of
execution because the judgments for which execution was asked were reversed by a
higher court on appeal.

The petition is dismissed, without costs.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, Jugo,
Bautista Angelo, and Labrador, JJ., concur.