CESARIO M. CLEMENTE, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HONORABLE MARIANO V. BENEDICTO, AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MASBATE, THE PROVIN…

Clemente versus Puigcerver

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari and mandamus with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, brought by Cesario Clemente against Lourdes Puigcerver, the Court of Appeals, and the presiding judge of the Court of First Instance of Masbate. Clemente asks the Supreme Court to set aside two writs of execution issued to enforce a judgment in an unlawful detainer case, to stop the Provincial Sheriff of Masbate from carrying them out, and to restore him to possession of the house in question while his appeal is pending. The case matters because it fixes two working rules every reviewee must know: an allegation of ownership in the answer does not strip a justice of the peace court of jurisdiction over an ejectment case when the claim of title rests on a contract that has already failed by its own terms, and the failure to file a supersedeas bond is by itself a sufficient ground for immediate execution.

Procedural History

Puigcerver filed an action for unlawful detainer against Clemente in the Justice of the Peace Court of Masbate. Judgment was rendered in favor of Clemente, and Puigcerver appealed to the Court of First Instance of Masbate. After trial, that court decided the case in favor of Puigcerver, ordering Clemente to vacate the house, to pay rentals in arrears, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs. Upon Puigcerver's motion, the respondent judge ordered immediate execution unless Clemente perfected an appeal and filed a supersedeas bond. Clemente surrendered possession but still appealed to the Court of Appeals. Because he filed no supersedeas bond, the trial court issued an alias writ of execution for the back rentals, and the Court of Appeals issued a similar order and denied his motion for leave to file a supersedeas bond. Clemente then came to the Supreme Court on certiorari and mandamus.

Facts

Lourdes Puigcerver owned a residential house built on public land in Masbate, Masbate. She had filed a Miscellaneous Lease Application over the land, which the Bureau of Lands disapproved in April 1948. In September 1950 she leased the house to Cesario Clemente for a monthly rental of 80 pesos, later reduced to 70 pesos.

On March 3, 1951, the parties entered into a contract of conditional sale of the house for 7,800 pesos. Clemente paid 2,800 pesos as down payment and later paid another 1,000 pesos on the unpaid price. The balance of 5,000 pesos was to be paid as soon as Clemente secured approval of his application for sale of the land. The contract provided that if his application were disapproved and the fact made known to the vendor, Clemente would pay rentals from the signing of the contract, deductible from the down payment. Clemente filed his Miscellaneous Sales Application, which was disapproved in December 1951. Puigcerver reminded him of his obligation to pay rentals, and she herself filed her own sales application over the same land. The Bureau of Lands gave due course to Clemente's application, but on appeal the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources rejected Clemente's application and gave due course to Puigcerver's, and that decision became final and executory in January 1957.

Meanwhile, because Clemente refused to pay rentals, Puigcerver filed the unlawful detainer case. In his answer, Clemente claimed he had occupied the house as absolute owner since the conditional sale, that he had not notified the vendor of the disapproval because he was still negotiating, and that the justice of the peace court had no jurisdiction because the question of ownership was necessarily involved.

Issues

• Whether or not the Justice of the Peace Court of Masbate had original jurisdiction over the ejectment case, and the Court of First Instance of Masbate jurisdiction on appeal, despite Clemente's allegation of ownership in his answer.
• Whether or not the Court of First Instance of Masbate and the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writs of execution and in denying Clemente leave to file a supersedeas bond.

Applicable Provisions

Section 8 of Rule 72 of the Rules of Court, as referred to in the decision, governs stay of execution in ejectment cases:

Section 8. Stay of execution. — If the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff or deposit with the court the amount of rent due from time to time, as found in the judgment of the justice of the peace or the Court of First Instance, and shall file a bond conditioned to pay the rents that may accrue during the pendency of the appeal, execution shall be stayed.

This provision bears on the case because Clemente never filed the supersedeas bond it requires, which the Court held was a sufficient ground for the writs of execution.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the justice of the peace court had jurisdiction. Upon the pleadings, the only question was recovery of physical possession. The mere fact that Clemente alleged he considered himself exclusive owner did not deprive the court of jurisdiction, because the contract he relied on was merely a conditional sale which became ineffective, by its own terms, upon the disapproval of his sales application. The Court noted that a separate action on title and ownership was pending in the same court, further showing the ejectment case did not involve title.

On the second issue, the Court held there was no grave abuse of discretion. Clemente failed to file the supersedeas bond required since May 1960, and only moved for leave to file one in March 1961, after the writ had already issued. That failure was obviously a sufficient ground for execution upon the petition of the prevailing party.

Doctrine

First, a justice of the peace court does not lose jurisdiction over an ejectment case merely because the defendant alleges ownership in his answer, where the claim of title rests on a contract that has already become ineffective by its own terms. The action remains one for physical possession. Second, under Section 8 of Rule 72, the defendant in an ejectment case who fails to file a supersedeas bond may not complain of immediate execution; the failure is a sufficient ground for the writ, and denial of a belated motion for leave to file the bond is not grave abuse of discretion.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the writs prayed for, dismissed the petition, dissolved the preliminary injunction, and imposed costs against Clemente.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a bare allegation of ownership does not convert an ejectment case into a title case when the claim rests on a contract that has already failed by its own terms. Examiners use this case to test jurisdiction over unlawful detainer and the mandatory supersedeas bond under Section 8 of Rule 72.