G.R. No. L-1506 - Victoriano v. Leopoldo
G.R. No. L-1506 - Victoriano v. Leopoldo
G.R. No. L-1506 - Victoriano v. Leopoldo
Leopoldo
SECOND DIVISION
SYLLABUS
DECISION
TUASON, J : p
https://0-cdasiaonline-com.lib1000.dlsu.edu.ph/jurisprudences/40062/print 1/3
10/8/2019 G.R. No. L-1506 | Victoriano v. Leopoldo
In civil case No. 532 of the Court of First Instance of Manila for
unlawful detainer, judgment was rendered on December 12, 1946,
sentencing the defendant, petitioner herein, to vacate the premises in
question, to pay the rents in areas (P1,437.50) up to and including
November, 1946, and the subsequent rents as they fell due. On April 2,
1947, the court approved the record on appeal and the appeal bond of P60
and ordered them forwarded to the Court of Appeals. Before that date, on
March 17, 1947, on motion of plaintiffs, the court had made an order
requiring the defendant to file a supersedeas bond of P2,000 to answer for
the payment of the rents in arrears and the rents to become due, with the
warning that if he failed to do so execution would be issued. The defendant
sought the annulment of that order in a petition for certiorari in the Court of
Appeals. In a resolution of the latter court promulgated on the 18th of April,
1947, it denied the petition, declaring the order "valid, just and in
consonance with equity of law" but giving the lower court discretion to
require the defendant, in lieu of a supersedeas bond, to deposit the
amount which the court had found to be due as unpaid rents and thereafter
P68.75 monthly during the pendency of the appeal. That resolution was
not appealed and has become final. On June 14, 1947, the trial court
ordered the execution of the judgment in view of the defendant's failure to
file either a supersedeas bond in the required amount or to deposit the
current rents and the rents in arrears. It appears that in June, 1947, (the
exact date not stated), the plaintiff filed a motion for execution with the
Court of Appeals, but that court, by resolution of June 6, 1947, refrained
from taking any action on said motion and told the movants to reproduce it
in the lower court in accordance with section 9, Rule 41, of the Rules of
Court. That resolution of the Court of Appeals has also become final. The
plaintiffs filed a motion with the trial court as suggested by the Court of
Appeals, and the Honorable Emilio Peña, Judge, on June 14, 1947,
ordered execution to issue.
This is an application for certiorari challenging the jurisdiction of the
respondent judge to issue the above execution, on the ground that more
than two months had expired after the appeal was perfected. The above
statement of facts shows that execution was to be issued before the
perfection of the appeal but that the petitioner, as defendant in the case,
contested its (execution's) legality and succeeded in halting the same, in a
petition which was later decided against him by the Court of Appeals.
That being so, the present petition must be denied. Good
conscience and fair dealing will not permit a party to take undue advantage
of a situation which he himself not only created, but did so against the
bitter opposition and to the prejudice of his opponent. As a matter of fact,
the execution complained of is practically the same execution issued or to
be issued on time and was blocked temporarily by the now petitioner's
action. Viewed in this light, the present petition is res judicata, the
execution in question being the very matter which was actually adjudged
and declared in order by the Court of Appeals.
https://0-cdasiaonline-com.lib1000.dlsu.edu.ph/jurisprudences/40062/print 2/3
10/8/2019 G.R. No. L-1506 | Victoriano v. Leopoldo
https://0-cdasiaonline-com.lib1000.dlsu.edu.ph/jurisprudences/40062/print 3/3