IRENEO MIRAFUENTES, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEE, VS. VICTORIO SABELLANO, CRISTINO G. ABASOLO AND TEOFILO M. PEREYRA, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

In civil case No. 817 of the Court of First Instance of Misamis
Occidental, wherein Ireneo, Sebastian, Timoteo and Zacarias Mirafuentes
were the plaintiffs, and Victorio Sabellano was the defendant, a
decision was rendered declaring that the plaintiffs were “entitled to
redeem the land in question by paying to the defendant the sum of
P1,000 in genuine currency” and ordering the defendant, upon payment by
the plaintiffs of the amount of Pl,000, “to execute a deed of resale of
the land in question to the plaintiffs without special pronouncement as
to damages and be appointed, and that a writ of possession be issued in
immediate execution of the decision, he filed a supersedeas bond for
P6,000, with Teofilo Pereyra and Cristino G. Abasolo as sureties, the
condition being that “if the said defendant Victorio Sabellano shall
well and truly pay or cause to be paid any and all sum or sums which
may be or become due by reason of the affirmance of the judgment herein-before mentioned, then this undertaking shall be and become of no
further force nor effect; otherwise, the same shall continue in full
force and effect and be subject to enforcement in the manner provided
by law.” In due time the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the decision of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental.

On September 2, 1949, the plaintiffs filed in the Court of First
Instance of Misamis Occidental against Victorio Sabellano, Cristino G.
Abasolo and Teofilo Pereyra a complaint for the recovery of damages in
the sum of P6,000, for the use and occupation by the defendant
Sabellano of the land litigated in civil case No. 817. After hearing,
the court rendered a decision sentencing the defendants, jointly and
severally; to pay to the plaintiffs the sum of P2,000, with legal
interest from the date of the filing of the complaint, but without
costs. The court ruled that the supersedeas bond filed by the
defendants in civil case No. 817 is answerable for said damages. From
this decision the defendants have appealed.

In our opinion, the appellants are not liable. Under section 2, Rule
39, of the Rules of Court, execution issued before the expiration of
the time to appeal may be stayed upon the approval by the court of a
sufficient supersedeas bond filed by the appellant, conditioned for the
performance of the judgment or order appealed from in case it be
affirmed wholly or in part. The bond here in question, undoubtedly
executed and filed pursuant to this reglementary provision, was
conditioned for the payment by the defendant Victorio Sabellano of any
sum which may be due by reason of the affirmance of the decision; and
this clearly meant that the measure of the liability was the appealed
decision if it should be affirmed. Since the decision of the Court of
First Instance in civil case No. 817, which was upheld by the Court of
Appeals, did not award in favor of the plaintiffs any damages or costs,
and since it is now admitted that said decision had already been
executed, there remained nothing to be paid by the defendant Sabellano
and therefore by this sureties, the defendants Abasolo and Pereyra.
This result is in consonance with section 3 of the Rule 39 which
provides that the supersedeas bond “may be executed on motion before
the trial court after the case is remanded to it by the appellate
court,” thereby assuming that liability under the bond would arise from
the appealed judgment in the same case in which it was filed.

There is no merit in appellees’ contention that the bond is not
entirely judicial, but contractual. The wordings do not expressly make
the defendants liable for damages, apart from the adjudication recited
in the decision in civil case No. 817.

Wherefore, the appealed decision is reversed and the defendants absolved from the complaint, without costs. So ordered.

Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, and Diokno, JJ., concur.