YU SIP, PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE SHERIFF OF CALOOCAN, RIZAL, AND VICTORIA PASCUAL, RESPONDENTS.

The petitioner brought an action to replevy a truck described in the
complaint, claiming to be the owner thereof. Upon the filing of a bond in the
sum of P4,000, which is double the value of the truck, the sheriff took
possession thereof and delivered it to the petitioner. In her answer to the
complaint and in her third-party complaint against the petitioner, Ong Kiat
Sing, and two guarantors of the latter, Victoria Pascual, one of the two
defendants in the replevin case, alleged that she was the owner of the truck
which she had leased to Ong Kiat Sing on 20 September 1946 for six months at P10
a day as rental; that the lessee sold it to the petitioner, the plaintiff in the
replevin case, and for which sale the former was charged with and convicted of
estafa with falsification of public document, and sentenced to suffer
imprisonment, to pay a fine, and to indemnify Victoria Pascual in the sum of
P2,300. After hearing in the replevin case, the Court declared the defendant and
third-party plaintiff the owner of the truck; ordered the petitioner—the
plaintiff in the replevin case—to return the truck, or, should the plaintiff be
unable to return it, to pay P2,300, its value, to the defendant Victoria
Pascual, and in either case, to pay P30 daily from 6 January 1947 to the date of
the truck’s return or the payment of its full value; directed Ong Kiat Sing to
pay P540, the rental of the truck from 1 November to 24 December 1946, and the
two guarantors to pay the said sum should their principal Ong Kiat Sing fail to
pay it, and costs. From this judgment the petitioner appealed. In the Court of
Appeals, the appellee Victoria Pascual asked for the increase in the amount of
the bond or for an additional bond of P30,000, alleging that the appeal was
frivolous and for the purpose of delaying the execution of the judgment and of
allowing the appellant to dispose of his property to defraud her, to which
petition the appellant—the herein petitioner—objected. The Court of Appeals
granted the petition of the appellee but in the sum of P10,000 only. As the
appellant—the herein petitioner—failed to file the bond thus required within the
period fixed by the Court of Appeals, the appellee moved for the execution of
the judgment rendered in the case. The Court of Appeals granted the motion for
execution “without prejudice to the appeal taking its course.” A motion for
reconsideration of the last resolution was denied.

Petitioner seeks to annul the resolution of the Court of Appeals requiring
him to file an additional bond for P10,000, and the one ordering the issuance of
a writ of execution, at the instance of the appellee after the appellant, the
herein petitioner, had failed to file the required bond within the period fixed
by the Court, on the ground that the Court of Appeals had no authority to
require the petitioner to increase the amount of the original bond for P4,000 or
to file an additional bond for P10,000, and to order execution of the judgment
upon failure of the petitioner to comply with the requirement; and that, even if
the Court of Appeals had the power to make such requirement, it would constitute
an excess of its jurisdiction or a grave abuse of discretion.

The questions raised in the petition filed in this case have become moot, in
view of the fact that the judgment in the replevin case had been affirmed by the
Court of Appeals; that a writ of execution had been issued therein and pursuant
thereto the sheriff seized the truck from the petitioner and delivered it to the
respondent Victoria Pascual; and that the petitioner had no. property with which
to satisfy that part of the judgment awarding damages to the prevailing
party.

Petition dismissed, the writ of preliminary injunction dissolved, with costs
against the petitioner.

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, and
Reyes, JJ., concur.

PADILLA, J.:

I certify that Mr. Justice Torres voted for the dismissal of the
petition.