In ejectment cases in the Philippines, a judgment favoring the plaintiff is typically immediately executory. However, a defendant can prevent this immediate execution by perfecting an appeal, filing a supersedeas bond, and consistently depositing the due rentals during the appeal period. Failure to meet any of these conditions allows the court to immediately execute the judgment. The Supreme Court’s decision in Acbang v. Luczon, Jr. underscores the importance of strictly adhering to these procedural requirements to maintain possession of the property while an appeal is pending.

Eviction Averted? How a Technicality Altered the Course of an Ejectment Appeal

This case revolves around a dispute over land ownership between Spouses Maximo and Heidi Lopez and Herminia Acbang, her son Benjamin, and his wife Jean. The Spouses Lopez initially filed an ejectment suit against the Acbangs in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) due to their failure to answer the complaint, which resulted in a decision favoring the Spouses Lopez. Herminia Acbang then appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Simultaneously, the Spouses Lopez sought immediate execution of the MTC’s decision, alleging that the Acbangs had not filed a supersedeas bond. This led to the central legal question: Under what conditions can the execution of a judgment in an ejectment case be stayed pending appeal?

The heart of the matter lies in Section 19, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs the immediate execution of judgment in ejectment cases and how to stay it. The rule explicitly states:

Section 19. Immediate execution of judgment; how to stay same. — If judgment is rendered against the defendant, execution shall issue immediately upon motion unless an appeal has been perfected and the defendant to stay execution files a sufficient supersedeas bond, approved by the Municipal Trial Court and executed in favor of the plaintiff to pay the rents, damages, and costs accruing down to the time of the judgment appealed from, and unless, during the pendency of the appeal, he deposits with the appellate court the amount of rent due from time to time under the contract, if any, as determined by the judgment of the Municipal Trial Court. In the absence of a contract, he shall deposit with the Regional Trial Court the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the premises for the preceding month or period at the rate determined by the judgment of the lower court on or before the tenth day of each succeeding month or period.

This provision outlines three critical requirements for staying the execution: (1) perfecting the appeal, (2) filing a supersedeas bond, and (3) periodically depositing the rentals. Failure to comply with any of these requirements gives the plaintiff the right to immediate execution. Building on this principle, the Supreme Court, in Chua v. Court of Appeals, clarified that:

As a general rule, a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an ejectment suit is immediately executory, in order to prevent further damage to him arising from the loss of possession of the property in question. To stay the immediate execution of the said judgment while the appeal is pending the foregoing provision requires that the following requisites must concur: (1) the defendant perfects his appeal; (2) he files a supersedeas bond; and (3) he periodically deposits the rentals which become due during the pendency of the appeal. The failure of the defendant to comply with any of these conditions is a ground for the outright execution of the judgment, the duty of the court in this respect being “ministerial and imperative.” Hence, if the defendant-appellant perfected the appeal but failed to file a supersedeas bond, the immediate execution of the judgment would automatically follow. Conversely, the filing of a supersedeas bond will not stay the execution of the judgment if the appeal is not perfected. Necessarily then, the supersedeas bond should be filed within the period for the perfection of the appeal.

The court emphasized the ministerial duty of the court to issue a writ of execution when the defendant fails to meet all three conditions. The filing of an appeal alone is not enough to stay the execution. The supersedeas bond serves as a guarantee to the plaintiff that they will be compensated for any losses incurred during the appeal, such as unpaid rents and damages. Moreover, the periodic deposit of rentals ensures that the plaintiff continues to receive income from the property during the appeal process.

In the case at hand, the RTC initially granted the Spouses Lopez’s motion for immediate execution due to the Acbangs’ failure to post a supersedeas bond. However, a subsequent development dramatically altered the course of the case. The RTC later ruled that the MTC had not acquired jurisdiction over Herminia Acbang because she had not been properly served with summons. As a result, the RTC declared the MTC’s decision void with respect to Herminia Acbang and ordered the MTC to reopen the case and properly serve her with summons. This effectively nullified the basis for the immediate execution against her, rendering the issue of the supersedeas bond moot.

Despite the initial focus on the requirements for staying execution, the RTC’s later decision highlighted a more fundamental issue: the lack of proper service of summons. This underscores the principle that a court must have jurisdiction over the person of the defendant before it can render a valid judgment. Without proper service of summons, the defendant is not legally bound by the court’s decision.

The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the petition for prohibition filed by Herminia Acbang, but not because she had failed to comply with the requirements for staying execution. Instead, the dismissal was based on the fact that the RTC had already declared the MTC’s judgment void as to her. This demonstrates how subsequent events can render a legal issue moot, even if the initial arguments centered on procedural requirements.

This case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to procedural rules in ejectment cases. Defendants seeking to stay the execution of a judgment must perfect their appeal, file a supersedeas bond, and consistently deposit the accruing rentals. However, it also highlights the fundamental principle that a court must have jurisdiction over the defendant before it can issue a valid judgment. The supervening declaration of nullity based on lack of jurisdiction superseded the procedural issue of the supersedeas bond, providing a complete defense for Herminia Acbang.

FAQs

What is a supersedeas bond?	A supersedeas bond is a security bond filed by a defendant-appellant to stay the execution of a judgment while an appeal is pending. It guarantees the payment of rents, damages, and costs accruing down to the time of the judgment.
What happens if a defendant fails to file a supersedeas bond in an ejectment case?	If the defendant fails to file a supersedeas bond and make periodic rental deposits, the plaintiff is entitled to the immediate execution of the judgment, meaning the defendant can be evicted. The court’s duty to issue the writ of execution in such cases is ministerial and imperative.
What are the requirements to stay the immediate execution of a judgment in an ejectment case?	To stay the immediate execution, the defendant must (1) perfect the appeal, (2) file a sufficient supersedeas bond, and (3) periodically deposit the rents due during the pendency of the appeal. All three conditions must be met.
What does it mean to “perfect an appeal”?	Perfecting an appeal generally involves filing a notice of appeal within the prescribed period and complying with all other procedural requirements for bringing the case before the appellate court. This signifies the defendant’s intention to challenge the lower court’s decision.
What happens if the trial court lacks jurisdiction over the defendant?	If the trial court lacks jurisdiction over the defendant, any judgment rendered by the court is void and unenforceable against that defendant. Lack of proper service of summons can be a basis for a court lacking jurisdiction.
What is the significance of the ruling in Chua v. Court of Appeals?	Chua v. Court of Appeals clarifies and reinforces the requirements for staying the immediate execution of a judgment in an ejectment case. It emphasizes that all three conditions (perfecting appeal, filing supersedeas bond, and depositing rentals) must be met.
What does it mean for a legal issue to be “moot”?	A legal issue is considered moot when it no longer presents a justiciable controversy because subsequent events have resolved the matter. In this case, the declaration that the MTC judgment was void rendered the issue of the supersedeas bond moot.
Can a motion for execution be filed in the appellate court?	Yes, in ejectment cases, if the defendant-appellant fails to comply with the requirements to stay execution, the motion for execution can be filed in the appellate court. This ensures the plaintiff can regain possession of the property without undue delay.

In conclusion, while the procedural aspects of staying execution in ejectment cases are critical, fundamental issues like jurisdiction can override these concerns. Litigants must be vigilant in ensuring proper procedures are followed, but also mindful of potential defenses that could render the entire process moot.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Herminia Acbang v. Hon. Jimmy H.F. Luczon, Jr., G.R. No. 164246, January 15, 2014