You are on page 1of 2

Del Rosario v.

Balagot

FACTS
 The del Rosarios were sued in an unlawful detainer action by Sps Magno.
o For neither filing an answer nor appearing, they were declared in default but they filed a motion
to set this aside, along with an answer.
o In their answer, they alleged that while their lease had indeed expired, the continued
acceptance of rent meant an implied renewal.
 The order of default was set aside but the trial was repeatedly postponed because of the del Rosarios.
o At last setting, they made no appearance and were again in default so the case was submitted
for judgment and it was rendered against them.
 Instead of an appeal, they filed a special civil action of certiorari on the ground that they have been
denied due process by virtue of the default order. Their petition was dismissed because the declaration
of default was proper and certiorari is not a substitute for appeal.
 They then took an appeal from this dismissal and while the appeal bond and record on appeal were
pending approval, Sps Magno moved for immediate execution of judgment alleging that:
1. The decision sought to be appealed, being against the defendants in an unlawful detainer
action, is an exception to the rule that an appeal vacates the judgment of an inferior court and
that execution may be had only after a judgment has become executory;
2. That the del Rosarios had not posted a supersedeas bond; and
3. That the subject house was in danger of deterioration.
o The del Rosarios opposed this motion, arguing that the perfection of their appeal precluded
favorable action thereon.
 (For reasons unknown) A new judge, Balagot, authorized the execution of the judgment pending appeal
based on the following, with the counter-argument of the del Rosarios:
1. Appeal had not been perfected yet (bond and record were still awaiting approval), counter
argument: mere filing of notice of appeal perfected it;
2. The house was in danger of deterioration since the del Rosarios had not been preserving it,
counter: no need for supersedeas bond because inferior court did not order payment of back
rentals since they were regularly paying; and
3. No supersedeas bond had been filed, counter: no good reason, Sps Magno was hurrying
execution because they want to sell the house.

ISSUE + RULING
Was the order granting execution pending appeal rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction? NO.
 The del Rosarios had absolutely no right to stay in the house because their term had expired and the
implied renewal was only applicable if there had been acquiescence of the lessor and no notice to
vacate.
o After the initial option to purchase had expired without the del Rosarios exercising it, they were
asked to vacate and the ejectment suit was filed – absolutely precludes implied renewal.
 Also, their failure to appeal rendered the ejectment suit judgment final and executory.
 Finally, an appeal under Rule 41 is not perfected until approval but the Court has the power to order
immediate execution pending appeal.

Was certiorari proper? NO.


 It is a special civil action that is not a substitute for appeal and thus, did not toll the period for appeal.