Puncia v. Gerona (G.R. No. 107640; January 29, 1996)
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
(Please help us make a case digest for this piece of jurisprudence. You may leave your contribution in the comment section below or email us at info@projectjurisprudence.com. Please include your name so we can properly give credit to you for your work.)
SYLLABUS
1. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER; IMMEDIATE EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT OF EVICTION, MANDATORY. - An immediate execution of the judgment in forcible entry and detainer action is governed by Rule 70 of the Rules of Court which reads: SEC. 8. Immediate execution of judgment. How to stay same. - If judgment is rendered against the defendant, execution shall issue immediately, unless an appeal has been perfected and the defendant to stay execution files a sufficient bond, approved by the municipal or city court and executed to the plaintiff to enter the action in the Court of First Instance and 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 found by the judgment of the municipal or city court to exist. Thus, in order to avoid further injustice to a lawful possessor, an immediate execution of a judgment of eviction is mandated and the courts duty to order such execution is practically ministerial.
2. ID.; ID; ID.; ID.; WHEN EXECUTION MAY BE STAYED. - A writ of execution, nevertheless, may be stayed - x x x by a) perfecting an appeal; b) filing a supersedeas bond; and c) periodically depositing with the appellate court the rentals falling due during the pendency of the appeal. It has been held that a stay may also be warranted once the writ is issued (a) where a delay in the deposit is due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence, or (b) where supervening events occurring subsequent to the judgment bring about a material change in the situation of the parties which makes execution inequitable, or where there is no compelling urgency for the execution because it is not justified by the prevailing circumstances. Not one of the exceptions hereinabove mentioned is here extant nor invoked by petitioners.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; REPUBLIC ACT NO 7279; NOT APPLICABLE IN CASE AT BAR. - Petitioners insistence on the applicability of Republic Act No. 7279 or the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 is totally misplaced. Section 28(c) itself states that eviction or demolition may be allowed when there is a court order for eviction and demolition.
