CATALINA CURA ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. SOTERO RODAS, JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, THE SHERIFF OF CITY OF MANILA, AND RAMON RICAFORT, RESPONDENTS.

On October 10, 1945, the Municipal Court of Manila rendered a decision for
the ejectment of twelve tenants, including the herein six petitioners. They
appealed.

On March 4, 1946, the owner moved for the execution of the appealed decision
upon two grounds: first, failure to file the appeal bond provided by section 8
of Rule 72, and second, failure to deposit rents. The motion was granted on
April 11, 1946.

On April 13, 1946, appellants moved for reconsideration alleging that,
although it is true that some of the tenants “had failed and others had refused
to pay their corresponding part of the rents, yet, the majority of said tenants
had been paying their rents religiously” and that if no appeal bond “had yet
been filed by the paying tenants1, the reason is that the municipal court did
not fix the amount of such bond.” On April 17, the motion was denied.

On May 8, 1947, a second motion for reconsideration was filed, wherein
appellants alleged that “almost all” of the defendants had filed their
respective bonds and were up-to-date in making the rent deposits, with the
exception of Rafael Contreras. On May 21, the second motion for reconsideration
was denied. In the order of denial it was stated that subsequent to the denial
of the first motion for reconsideration, defendants, had been making deposits of
rents, but always beyond the time fixed by the provisions of section 8 of Rule
72.

On May 26, appellants’ prayed for the suspension of execution of the judgment
for a period of six months “in order to give the petitions sufficient time to
find other premises wherein to transfer.” On June 21, the petition for
suspension was denied for lack of averment to the effect that defendants
deposited the rents due up to the filing of the petition.

Therefater, defendants came to us seeking the annulment of the orders of the
Court of First Instance of April 11, and May 21, 1947, as having been made in
excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion.

Respondents answered that petitioners have never been up-to-date in the
payment or deposit of rents, with specification of amounts and dates.

Upon the very facts alleged in petitioners’ motion for reconsideration dated
April 13, 1946, there should not be any question that they failed to file the
appeal bond and, at least, some of the defendants had failed and even refused to
pay the rents.

The lower court acted according to law in issuing the orders of April 11 and
May 21, 1947.

Petition dismissed.

Paras, Hilado, and Tuason, JJ., concur.

PARAS, J.:

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