FELICIDAD CASTUERAS, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. HON. FROILAN BAYONA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Castueras versus Bayona

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction filed by Felicidad Castueras and her co-defendants against Judge Froilan Bayona and the plaintiffs in an ejectment case. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to annul the trial court's order of immediate execution and its authority allowing the plaintiffs to collect the rentals the defendants had deposited with the clerk of court. The case matters because it fixes the meaning of the supersedeas bond in ejectment appeals under the old rules — specifically, what items that bond must secure, and whether attorney's fees count as "damages" for that purpose.

Procedural History

The plaintiffs filed an action for ejectment in the Municipal Court of Manila. After trial, the municipal court rendered judgment against the defendants, ordering each of them to remove the structures they had built on the land, to pay rentals in arrears, to pay a monthly sum until they vacated the property, to pay attorney's fees, and to pay the costs.

The defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance. They posted an appeal bond and deposited with the clerk of court the aggregate amount of the rentals in arrears covered by the judgment, and continued depositing the monthly rentals as they fell due. The plaintiffs moved twice for immediate execution, first on the ground that no supersedeas bond had been filed, and later on the ground that the deposit could not substitute for the bond because it did not cover the attorney's fees awarded. The trial court denied the first motion but granted the second, ordered immediate execution, issued the writ, and authorized the plaintiffs to collect the deposit. The defendants' motion for reconsideration was denied. The defendants then filed this petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction before the Supreme Court, alleging that the trial court acted in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.

Facts

On November 13, 1957, Celso Bautista and others filed an action for ejectment against Felicidad Castueras and several others before the Municipal Court of Manila. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiffs. Each defendant was ordered to remove the building and other structures built on the land, to pay rental in arrears, to pay a monthly sum until vacating the property, to pay fifty pesos as attorney's fees, and to pay the costs of action.

The defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance. They put up the required appeal bond and deposited with the clerk of court the amount of two hundred sixteen pesos, representing the aggregate rentals in arrears covered by the judgment. They also began depositing the monthly rentals that might become due, as ordered by the municipal court. They did not file a supersedeas bond.

The plaintiffs moved for immediate execution, and the trial court eventually granted the motion, issued the writ of execution, and authorized the plaintiffs to collect the deposited rentals. The defendants brought the matter to the Supreme Court by certiorari.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in ordering immediate execution of the judgment on the ground that the defendants had not filed a supersedeas bond.
• Whether or not the deposit of the back rentals with the clerk of court may take the place of a supersedeas bond.
• Whether or not attorney's fees awarded in an ejectment case fall within the "damages" that a supersedeas bond must secure under Section 8 of Rule 72.

Applicable Provisions

Section 8 of Rule 72 of the Rules of Court provides:

If judgment is rendered against the defendant, execution shall issue immediately, unless an appeal has been perfected and the defendant to stay execution files a sufficient bond approved by the justice of the peace or municipal court and executed to the plaintiff to enter the action in the Court of First Instance, and to pay the rents, damages, and costs down to the time of the final judgment in the action, and unless, during the pendency of the appeal, he pays to the plaintiff or to the Court of First Instance the amount of rent due from time to time under the contract, if any, as found by the judgment of the justice of the peace or municipal court to exist, or, in the absence of a contract, he pays to the plaintiff or into the court, on or before the tenth day of each calendar month, the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the premises for the preceding month at the rate determined by the judgment.

This provision defines the bond that stays immediate execution and enumerates the items it must answer for: rents, damages, and costs.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court erred in ordering immediate execution. The defendants had not filed a supersedeas bond, but they had deposited the back rentals with the clerk of court. The Court noted its prior rulings that a supersedeas bond is unnecessary when the defendant has deposited in court the amount of all back rentals adjudged in the municipal court's judgment.

On the second issue, the Court treated the deposit as a valid substitute for the bond, since it covered the back rentals adjudged to the plaintiffs.

On the third issue, the Court clarified what the supersedeas bond secures. Under the rule, the bond answers for rents, damages, and costs down to the time of final judgment. The Court held that in ejectment cases, "rents" and "damages" are used interchangeably, because no other damages can be adjudicated except the loss of rents or their equivalent. Damages in this context mean the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the property, generally measured by its fair rental value. They cannot refer to other kinds of damages foreign to the enjoyment or material possession of the property. Consequently, attorney's fees cannot be considered as damages. The Court observed that when the Rules of Court were approved on July 1, 1940, attorney's fees could not yet be recovered as damages but only as costs; the right to collect attorney's fees as damages was recognized only when the new Civil Code took effect on August 30, 1950.

Since attorney's fees are not damages within the meaning of the rule, and the defendants had already deposited the back rentals as a substitute for the supersedeas bond, the trial court erred in ordering immediate execution.

Doctrine

A supersedeas bond in an ejectment case is unnecessary when the defendant has deposited in court the amount of all back rentals adjudged in the municipal court's judgment. The bond required by Section 8 of Rule 72 secures rents, damages, and costs down to the time of final judgment. In ejectment, damages means only the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the property, generally the fair rental value; it does not include other damages foreign to material possession. Attorney's fees are not damages within the meaning of the rule, and cannot justify immediate execution where the back rentals have been deposited.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the pertinent orders of the respondent court were set aside, with costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: in ejectment, damages means only the reasonable compensation for use and occupation, and attorney's fees are not damages under Section 8 of Rule 72. Examiners use this case to test the requisites for staying immediate execution in ejectment and the proper substitute for a supersedeas bond.