You are on page 1of 2


SANTIAGO, as Judge of Branch 101, Regional Trial Court of Quezon Ci ty; BENITO PALOMADO, PIO BERMEJO and SANTOS NGALIO July 31, 2000 ~ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. Action: Petition for Mandamus, Relief sought: Petitioners seek to compel respondent Judge to issue a writ of ex ecution pending appeal in the consolidated ejectment cases RTC: Affd MeTC MeTC: Judgment in petitioners favor Root: Four consolidated ejectment cases Dispositive: Granted. FACTS: MeTC and RTC decided in favor of petitioners Petitioners filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution Pending App eal, to which private respondent filed their Opposition Meanwhile, private respondents filed a Petition for Review with the CA a ssailing the Decision of respondent Judge in the ejectment cases Respondent Judge issued an Order denying petitioners motion >>> MR oppose d >>> MR denied o Basis for denying the motion: respondent Judge cited private respondents compliance with the requirements to stay immediate execution of judgment, namely : (1) perfection of appeal; (2) filing of a supersedeas bond; and (3) periodic d eposit of the rentals falling due during the pendency of the appeal. Petitioners argument: Rule 70, Section 10, which enumerated the above-mentioned r equirements, has already been expressly repealed by Rule 70, Section 21 of the R evised Rules of Civil Procedure and that the execution of appealed ejectment dec isions with the Regional Trial Courts cannot now be stayed. Private respondents argument: Execution pending appeal would deprive them of thei r right to due process as it would render moot and academic their Petition for R eview before the CA [SC: What is in issue is only the propriety of issuing a writ of executi on pending appeal. It is not conclusive on the right of possession of the land a nd shall not have any effect on the merits of the ejectment suit still on appeal ] ISSUE: WoN decisions of Regional Trial Courts in appealed ejectment cases pendin g appeal with the CA are immediately executory and cannot be stayed HELD: YES. Northcastle Properties & Estate Corp. v. Judge Paas: It is the ministerial duty of the Regional Trial Court, as appellate court, to immediately execute its deci sion. Such interpretation is consistent with the summary nature of ejectment pro ceedings. Applicability: o Section 19 ~ only to ejectment cases pending appeal with the RTC Only execution of the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts judgment pending app eal with the Regional Trial Court which may be stayed by a compliance with the r equisites provided o Section 21 ~ only to those decided by the RTC once the RTC has rendered a decision in its appellate jurisdiction, such decisio n shall be immediately executory, without prejudice to an appeal, via a Petition for Review, before the Court of Appeals and/or Supreme Court. AS IN THIS CASE. Gonzales LaO & Co., Inc. vs. Sheriff Hatab: Unlike Rule 70 of the 1964 Revised Ru les of Court where the defendant, after perfecting his appeal, could prevent the immediate execution of the judgment by taking an appeal and making a periodic d eposit of monthly rentals during the pendency of the appeal and thereby preventi ng the plaintiff from taking possession of the premises in the meantime, the pre sent wording of Section 21, Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure expl icitly provides that the judgment of the regional trial court in ejectment cases appealed to it shall be immediately executory and can be enforced despite the p

erfection of an appeal to a higher court.