INES R. DE PAGES, INES VDA. DE JOSE RODRIGUEZ, IN HER CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JOSE RODRIGUEZ, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. HON. MATEO CANONOY, IN HIS CAPACITY AS…

Original action for certiorari and mandamus filed by Ines Vda. de
Rodriguez, Clemente Rodriguez, Miguela R. de Jariol and Paulo
Rodriguez, as administratrix, executor and joint special
administrators, respectively, of the Estates of Jose Rodriguez, Timoteo
Rodriguez and Humiliano Rodriguez, all deceased (Special Proceedings
Nos. 310-R, 1505-R, and 2114-R of the Court of First Instance of Cebu),
to annul or modify the respondent judge’s orders of June 10 and 29,
1961 in Civil Case No. R-6989, and to compel him to issue an order for
the immediate execution of the decision of the municipal court from
which said case originated.

On October 3, 1960 petitioners Ines Vda. de Rodriguez and Clemente
Rodriguez, in their respective capacities already mentioned, together
with Humiliano Rodriguez (now deceased and represented in the present
action by the joint special administrators of his estate), filed an
action for unlawful detainer in the Municipal Court of Cebu City (Civil
Case No. R-6236) against respondents Marciano Laurente and Diego
Canizares. After trial said court sentenced “the defendants to pay
jointly and severally the plaintiffs the sum of P3,150.00 representing
rents in arrears from January, 1960 to February, 1961, both inclusive,
with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of this decision,
to vacate the premises in question and to deliver the possession
thereof to the plaintiffs, to pay P225.00 a month from March 1, 1961
until the premises are vacated and returned to the plaintiffs, to pay
P500.00 as attorney’s fees and to pay the costs.”

Respondents appealed to the Court of First Instance of Cebu where the case was docketed as Civil Case No. R- 6989.

On May 15, 1961, petitioners filed a motion for the immediate
execution of the decision of the municipal court mentioned heretofore,
on the ground that respondents had failed (a) to file a supersedeas bond, as required by section 8, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court, and (b)
to pay petitioners or deposit with the Court of First Instance the
monthly rentals of P225.00 for the months of March and April 1961.

On June 10, 1961, respondent judge ordered the issuance of a writ of
execution to satisfy the judgment for rentals beginning March 1, 1961,
at the same time authorizing defendants to file a supersedeas bond for
the back rentals amounting to P3,150.00 within five days from receipt
thereof, otherwise, execution would also issue to satisfy the same.

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the above order
claiming that under section 8, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court, they were
entitled to the execution not only of the portion of the decision
relating to the payment of the current monthly rents due but also to
that relating to the ejectment, the rentals in arrears, attorney’s fees
and costs.

In his order of June 29, 1961, respondent judge denied petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration ruling that it is within his discretion to
allow a supersedeas bond to be filed before the judgment is executed
and that, having ordered respondents to pay the rents due during the
pendency of the appeal, petitioners are not entitled to the possession
of the property in question.

The answer filed by respondent judge alleges that this action has
become academic because after its filing on August 7, 1961 His Honor
rendered judgment in Civil Case No. R-6989:

1) Declaring the lease (Exh. C) terminated;

2)
Declaring the plaintiffs with right to the immediate possession of the
premises in question, and ordering the defendant, Marciano Laurente, to
vacate the same immediately;

3) Condemning the
defendants jointly and severally to pay the plaintiffs the sum of
P3,877.50 as back rentals and P600.00 as attorney’s fees with legal
interest per annum from the date hereof until fully paid;

4)
Granting the plaintiffs option either to retain Laurente’s building and
pay him P10,000.00 or to require the latter to remove it at his expense;

5) Dismissing the defendants’ counterclaim; and

6) Condemning the defendants to pay the costs.

In actions for unlawful detainer, the law in this jurisdiction is
that, if the inferior court renders judgment against the defendant and
the latter appeals to the Court of First Instance, his failure to file
a supersedeas bond and/or to pay on time the monthly reasonable value
of the use of the property or the rents fixed in the judgment will
entitle the plaintiff, as a matter of right, to the immediate execution
of the judgment both as to the payment of rents and the restoration of
possession (Section 8, Rule 72, Rules of Court, Romero vs. Pecson, 83 Phil. 308, Villaroman vs.
Abaya, 91 Phil., 20), the duty of the court to order such execution,
upon application of the plaintiff, being ministerial and imperative
(Perez vs. Fernandez; 99 Phil., 183; 53 Off. Gaz. [1] 109; Lopez Inc. vs. Philippine Trading etc. 98 Phil., 348; 52 Off. Gaz. (3) 1452; Alvarez vs. Lacson, 99 Phil., 166 52, Off Gaz. No. 10 page 4680).

Inspite of the fact that respondent judge has already rendered
judgment in Civil Case No. R-6989 in favor of petitioners, we are not
now in a position to consider the issue involved in this case as moot,
there being nothing in the record showing that said decision has
already become executory.

Wherefore, the orders complained of are set aside and respondent
judge is hereby ordered to issue a writ for the execution of the
judgment rendered by the municipal court of Cebu City. With costs
against other respondents.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.